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

[G.T.]

I

Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.

So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?

It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows. Next. Move on. What's the point? How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling. Did you get the atheism thing yet? It's so obvious. Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic? There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true. And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread. He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument. He admitted that too. So is this what you atheist do? Go in circles all the time? Get to ideas? When do you atheists ever do that? I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas. Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic? You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work. My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint. Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get. They ruin discussion. Will not let honest and objective discussion occur. Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either. Boring.

Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.

They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.

They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.

1. I exist.

Supports the tag argument? No.

2. The Universe exists.

Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.

3. God is not disprovable.

Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.

4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>

4 is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.

What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:

-gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)


It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.

TAG is only for the suckiest of suckers.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.

 

[Justin Davis]

I

Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.

So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?

It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows. Next. Move on. What's the point? How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling. Did you get the atheism thing yet? It's so obvious. Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic? There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true. And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread. He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument. He admitted that too. So is this what you atheist do? Go in circles all the time? Get to ideas? When do you atheists ever do that? I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas. Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic? You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work. My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint. Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get. They ruin discussion. Will not let honest and objective discussion occur. Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either. Boring.

Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.

They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.

They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.

1. I exist.

Supports the tag argument? No.

2. The Universe exists.

Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.

3. God is not disprovable.

Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.

4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>

4 is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.

What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:

-gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)


It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.

TAG is only for the suckiest of suckers.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Hollie]

I

Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.

So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?

It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows. Next. Move on. What's the point? How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling. Did you get the atheism thing yet? It's so obvious. Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic? There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true. And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread. He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument. He admitted that too. So is this what you atheist do? Go in circles all the time? Get to ideas? When do you atheists ever do that? I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas. Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic? You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work. My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint. Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get. They ruin discussion. Will not let honest and objective discussion occur. Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either. Boring.

Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.

They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.

They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.

1. I exist.

Supports the tag argument? No.

2. The Universe exists.

Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.

3. God is not disprovable.

Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.

4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>

4 is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.

What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:

-gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)


It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

At least you don't use a thesaurus and shotgun words / phrases into embarrassing non-sequiturs the way M. Pompous Rawling does.

You know your limitations.

 

[Hollie]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.

So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism.

Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.

 

[dblack]

Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . . I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.

That would be because you never asked about it.

I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.

And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?

Why do you have the idea of God in your head?

See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:

All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.

But you don’t believe that true, do you?

It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . . I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.

That would be because you never asked about it.

I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.

And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?

Why do you have the idea of God in your head?

See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:

All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.

But you don’t believe that true, do you?

It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.

All you want to do is argue. I'm not trying to prove anything. There's no bait and switch. There's nothing oblique or shifty about my style, you paranoid schizophrenic, though in all serious, I know you to be a narcissist at the very least and perhaps a sociopath. I'm dead serious.

The objective facts of cognitive realty speak for themselves. I don't need prove anything that you yourself cannot see. But you don't care what the objective facts of cognitive reality tell you, so you're a useless bore. What does one do with a bore who calls an axiomatic fact of logic a boogie man, eh?

If God's existence cannot be logically ruled out than its inverse that God does not exist is also illogical. They're the same assertion. That's not a boogie man. That's an objective fact of cognitive reality. You quibble over everything, and you're subject to go postal atheist for no reason. You have yet to acknowledge your irrational behavior for it is. You raised the issue of definitions. You raised the alleged contradiction regarding the connotations of the term atheist. You! I was showing you something that you might come to grasp the principle of identity that follows from the five things, and in the light of that, discuss the mind-brain dichotomy. You cannot do that if you're going ignore the objective facts of cognitive realty. You cannot to be trusted to tell the truth.

A normal, intellectually honest person doesn't go boogie man postal in the face of something like that and then insult the person who pointed that out to him. A normal, intellectually honest person says: "Wow! I never noticed that before; the assertion of atheism is comprehensively contrary to the fundamental laws of thought." And that was the third time you did that kind of thing.

Goodbye.

 

[Justin Davis]

Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . . I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.

That would be because you never asked about it.

I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.

And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?

Why do you have the idea of God in your head?

See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:

All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.

But you don’t believe that true, do you?

It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.

Three strikes, you're out. You've proven yourself to be another Lying QW.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.

So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism.

Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.

Boring.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Hollie]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.

So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism.

Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.

Boring.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The best way to confront fundie logic is to lay out, in declarative terms, the requirements for a rational, reasoned argument. As we see, this causes the fundies to retreat to the only debate they possess.

 

[Hollie]

Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . . I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.

That would be because you never asked about it.

I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.

And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?

Why do you have the idea of God in your head?

See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:

All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.

But you don’t believe that true, do you?

It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.

All you want to do is argue. I'm not trying to prove anything. There's no bait and switch. There's nothing oblique or shifty about my style, you paranoid schizophrenic, though in all serious, I know you to be a narcissist at the very least and perhaps a sociopath. I'm dead serious.

The objective facts of cognitive realty speak for themselves. I don't need prove anything that you yourself cannot see. But you don't care what the objective facts of cognitive reality tell you, so you're a useless bore. What does one do with a bore who calls an axiomatic fact of logic a boogie man, eh?

If God's existence cannot be logically ruled out than its inverse that God does not exist is also illogical. They're the same assertion. That's not a boogie man. That's an objective fact of cognitive reality. You quibble over everything, and you're subject to go postal atheist for no reason. You have yet to acknowledge your irrational behavior for it is. You raised the issue of definitions. You raised the alleged contradiction regarding the connotations of the term atheist. You! I was showing you something that you might come to grasp the principle of identity that follows from the five things, and in the light of that, discuss the mind-brain dichotomy. You cannot do that if you're going ignore the objective facts of cognitive realty. You cannot to be trusted to tell the truth.

A normal, intellectually honest person doesn't go boogie man postal in the face of something like that and then insult the person who pointed that out to him. A normal, intellectually honest person says: "Wow! I never noticed that before; the assertion of atheism is comprehensively contrary to the fundamental laws of thought." And that was the third time you did that kind of thing.

Goodbye.

But what about The Five Things™

 

[emilynghiem]

1.

Youre missing a step.

Proving god existing in the first place.

Dear GT and MD:
1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
can NEVER be proven or disproven.
So this is impossible.
The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
NOR
neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.

Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.

The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
much less any proof using these finite human means.

If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.

That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
is this clear? can we agree on this please?

Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.

2.

Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.

Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.

that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.

2. ?????

Sorry GT
It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.

I think we got crossed when
A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
instead of sticking to the content.
C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
instead of sticking to the content.

I though the point was that
God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.

And most other conflicts stem from people
"insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.

Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
a lot of messages saying
"but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."

Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
Can we start with that and agree on that much?

 

[emilynghiem]

So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism.

Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.

Hi Hollie: As a Naturalist, I can give it my best shot of explaining the spiritual relations in Christianity using
reasonable science and logic.

A.
1. people are connected either socially or spiritually. if you are religious you may describe this spiritually.
But even if you are secular, you can describe human relations and collective humanity as a "social" construct.
They are still interconnected, and interact the same way.
We still influence each other whether you call it "social" or "spiritual."

2. The point of Christianity is to teach, develop and RESTORE healthy and harmonious relationships.
* the keys are forgiveness as the greatest act of charity that brings healing to mind, body, and relationships.
* mutual connection and correction in the spirit of truth as established by agreement by conscience
* the concept that connecting and restoring truthful harmonious relations between
individuals "collectively" impacts the same on a "global" scale so all humanity follows those steps as well.
* and understanding the PROCESS so that we work WITH each other and follow
the process, whether we call it natural laws, universal laws, or use religion or psychology/sociology to describe it.

We are basically learning how to grow, either socially or "spiritually" if you call it that.

Whether or not we are nontheistic/secular or religious/theistic about it
it is STILL the same process, that can be described socially or spiritually.

There is nothing wrong with using those terms as long as they help communicate to that audience.

Does this help, Hollie?

if so then let's pick an angle that can be proven scientifically to show how this "universal process' works naturally

B. proving spiritual healing
in order to demonstrate universal laws (or "God's laws" if you are Christian)
I propose to study the effects of Spiritual healing on
* curing mental and physical illness by working WITH the mind/body's natural energy and process of health and healing
* resolving political and religious conflicts between people or groups
to demonstrate and/or document the impact of Forgiveness on reconciling differences
and to show it does not mean that people convert to other views, it means we learn to work around our conflicts
especially where these remain
* apply this reconciliation process to
SPECIFIC goals in the real world and real life to show real world applications that can be replicated

As an especially critical area
I would like to study the impact of spiritual deliverance on curing
"demonic voices" and occult/religious abuses that have made people act crazy, dangerous or otherwise
incureable of criminal illness and abuse.

So even if you think this stuff is "supernatural" it can be shown to follow
QUANTIFIABLE and predictable Patterns of behavior, cause and effect changes,a
and stages of treatment and recovery.

Similar to curing cancer or detecting remission or relapse of sickness.

This is all "energy" so it is consistent with science.

Positive thoughts, prayers and meditations that work on "life giving" energy
have a different effect than negative manipulations that work on "dark energy".

Even if we do not yet have the technology to measure these distinctly,
the EFFECTS of positive vs. negative can be documented
and show the Correlations through Statistics:
* that forgiveness/positive energy and "abundance" mentality CORRELATES with better health, success
and stable working relations with others
* unforgiveness/negative energy and "ill will" CORRELATES with division and unresolved conflicts
that DISRUPTS the natural flow of life and shows in the body, mind and relations around people.

So whatever is called "supernatural or spiritual"
can be shown to CORRELATE or ALIGN with
parallel process on the social and physical level.

No big deal.

proving gravity works is science and natural
and so is proving how spiritual healing works.

 

[emilynghiem]

OK so let's talk about the message in the Bible in terms of the development of human awareness and consciousness to reach maturity where there is collective harmony and peace.

Do you follow at least these interpretations that are very loose and general
1. the idea that Adam and Eve represent when man became self aware
and discovered free will and making choices so there are positive and negative consequences
and that past generations can affect future generations, or some variation of that theme.
I've seen this interpreted as shame about sex, or the karma that comes from eating meat
and corrupted our spirit, or the shift in trends from egalitarian to women being dominated by men
(and even that was interpreted two ways, one as a spiritual trend to replace matriarchal
society with patriarchal systems that dominate today,
and another interpretation was that economically men who hunted meat began to be
valued greater than the women and workers who gathered grains and vegetables,
so this dominance of man was economic and split people into classes to cause the downfall of human equality
and to keep women/workers subservient while the patriarchal leaders rule and monopolize the wealth)

what is your take on the symbolism of Adam and Eve and downfall of humanity?
is it EGO? ie become aware of our own will and desire in competition with other people or tribes
is it related to sex and gender?
is it class and economic or political dominance?

Hi Emily,

I will respond to the other questions in another post.

As far as the story of Adam and Eve, no, no, no and no.

The story is not about becoming self aware, sex or gender, the transition between hunting and gathering and farming and animal husbandry, matriarchal and patriarchal societies, eating meat, the first human beings, original sin, political dominance, competition with other tribes, or the downfall of humanity.


simply put it is a bronze age Hebrew version of a fairy tale, a story intended to educate children recently freed from bondage in Egypt about the dangers of losing your mind in a world where they were surrounded and vastly outnumbered by superstitious and irrational knuckle dragging barbarians, the beasts of the field, and the Nachash, the lowest of them all, were brazen deceivers who roamed the wilderness in search of the gullible.

The Hebrew word for serpent, Nachash, is both a noun and an adjective which means shining one, brazen, serpent or anyone who practices divination, the shining stars of the ancient world.

It is no small coincidence that the term 'breath of life' is Egyptian in origin and the Pharaoh, who was able to talk, wore a serpent on his head and disputed with Moses about God..

OK so the point remains: it represents the KNOWLEDGE of the laws.
and relationship with AUTHORITY over laws.

And whether this process of humanity coming to terms with "who is responsible or in charge"
leads to either
* death and destruction by the Letter of the Law (which can be corrupted in the church or state by greed for power)
* life and lasting peace by the Spirit of the Laws (which is shared by love of Truth and Justice to restore peace and order
and harmonious/balanced relations between people and among humanity collectively)

Are you okay saying that the downfall of humanity
is fighting over defending our freedom from the fear of tyranny or takeover by "other groups"

All this "tribal warfare" and competition, putting interests
of one's self or one's identity/group above others and other people
doing the same out of fear of being dominated as well.

So this is the vicious cycle that goes round and round.

Do you agree that the "selfish ego" side of humanity is what
leads to killing, crime, violence, oppression and suffering in the world
and continues the division in class by rich or poor, powerful or powerless, etc etc.

So if we are going to teach salvation/peace and freedom from slavery/suffering/sins of the past
we need to get over all this destructive sick behavior.

Do you agree the point is to seek justice to correct injustice, to seek good will to overcome ill will,
and to resolve conflicts in peace to prevent violence and war,
to restore and improve health to prevent sickness and death.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about number 4, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

1. Do we exist? YES!

2. Does the cosmos exist? YES!


3. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!


4. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!

Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.

Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.

So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism.

Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.

Prayer works by the "life energy" connecting people.
So all the things in Christianity can be explained in terms of how
people connect by "conscience" and how scientifically the
process in the mind affects the body, and relations with other people in the real world.

Thoughts, words, action.
Body mind spirit.

Whatever terms you use for these levels, that is what is symbolized
in religion, trying to explain the RELATIONSHIP between the
individual and the collective whole, or
the physical local level and the global level.

You can call the Collective level "spiritual" or "social"
or even "abstract" as in "collective truth" or "universal laws"
and it means the same highest level that includes all humanity.

Whatever you call this collective level, does not have to be "supernatural"
to be talking about the same thing.

Some people call the laws of nature "God"
some call them "Mother Nature"
and others just see them as natural laws or universal laws without personifying them.

The point is they are still the same laws
just represented in different symbology.

the Content and Principles behind the laws still exist.
No need to fight over supernatural symbolism for these laws.

 

[dblack]

Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . . I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.

That would be because you never asked about it.

I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.

And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?

Why do you have the idea of God in your head?

See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:

All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.

But you don’t believe that true, do you?

It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.

All you want to do is argue. I'm not trying to prove anything. There's no bait and switch. There's nothing oblique or shifty about my style, you paranoid schizophrenic, though in all serious, I know you to be a narcissist at the very least and perhaps a sociopath. I'm dead serious.

The objective facts of cognitive realty speak for themselves. I don't need prove anything that you yourself cannot see. But you don't care what the objective facts of cognitive reality tell you, so you're a useless bore. What does one do with a bore who calls an axiomatic fact of logic a boogie man, eh?

If God's existence cannot be logically ruled out than its inverse that God does not exist is also illogical. They're the same assertion. That's not a boogie man. That's an objective fact of cognitive reality. You quibble over everything, and you're subject to go postal atheist for no reason. You have yet to acknowledge your irrational behavior for it is. You raised the issue of definitions. You raised the alleged contradiction regarding the connotations of the term atheist. You! I was showing you something that you might come to grasp the principle of identity that follows from the five things, and in the light of that, discuss the mind-brain dichotomy. You cannot do that if you're going ignore the objective facts of cognitive realty. You cannot to be trusted to tell the truth.

A normal, intellectually honest person doesn't go boogie man postal in the face of something like that and then insult the person who pointed that out to him. A normal, intellectually honest person says: "Wow! I never noticed that before; the assertion of atheism is comprehensively contrary to the fundamental laws of thought." And that was the third time you did that kind of thing.

Goodbye.

Yeah, this is the vibe I got from your pontificating earlier in the thread. Which is why I was initially reluctant to step in your bullshit. I need to learn to trust my instincts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3): The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.

Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe. Is that what you're looking for?

I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.

Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.

Simple.

It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.

Simple.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.

You're a fucking idiot.

You're being too hard on the boy.

You’re just not understanding the M. Pompous Rawling theory of pointless argumentation.

As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
RE A.
1. There is evidence for the gods.

How do we know this?

2. Because the universe exists.

And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?


3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?

4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

Therefore:....

Simple.


A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.

How convenient.

NO that is not what he is saying
he is saying it can't be ruled out
God can neither be proven or disproven

He is trying to get to NEUTRAL

Can we get to NEUTRAL
that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
means God cannot be either proven or disproven

Can we please agree on that
and get to NEUTRAL

emilynghiem: Can we get to NEUTRAL

and that includes disqualify Christianity as is expressed by the OP as previous fallacies to discern the true origin of creation ...

.

????

No, "getting to NEUTRAL" does NOT disqualify Christianity.

it just drops EXCLUSION of any one side or another.

Dropping the "division or exclusion factor" still allows
all sides to participate equally.

Sorry if this isn't clear. Thanks BreezeWood
I know your heart and spirit is in the right place
and you are very inclusive and openly engaging.

We all need to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yeah, this is the vibe I got from your pontificating earlier in the thread. Which is why I was initially reluctant to step in your bullshit. I need to learn to trust my instincts.

Dear dblack and M.D. Rawlings:
I can follow MD through the logic of the arguments
UP TO THE POINT where things are thrown in there
like "if you can't see that then you're a Useless Bore"?

That is NOT neutral. Neutral would say
X and Y are conflicting. So if this is not resolved,
then something is wrong with this picture, and remain NEUTRAL
and not ASSUME The problem is with X person being a _____.

M.D. Rawlings: how can you ask our good friends here to
drop their emotional attachments to arguments,
and stick to what is purely logical and neutral,
but then you go and make an emotional judgment attached?

Do you see that is why they attach more to their points also?
You did the same, by saying "X condition equates to you being useless or a bore"

Those are NOT synonymous. The logic is a jump in conclusions.
So please fix this "leap in logic"
and maybe other people will quit this business of
"G cannot be proven thus this equates to angry Christians being mindless"

Those are NOT synonymous but value judgments attached.

We would ALL have to agree to stop adding "pork barreling to the
legislation" if we are going to pass any laws without those additives!

 

[hobelim]

As far as the story of Adam and Eve, no, no, no and no.

The story is not about becoming self aware, sex or gender, the transition between hunting and gathering and farming and animal husbandry, matriarchal and patriarchal societies, eating meat, the first human beings, original sin, political dominance, competition with other tribes, or the downfall of humanity.


simply put it is a bronze age Hebrew version of a fairy tale, a story intended to educate children recently freed from bondage in Egypt about the dangers of losing your mind in a world where they were surrounded and vastly outnumbered by superstitious and irrational knuckle dragging barbarians, the beasts of the field, and the Nachash, the lowest of them all, were brazen deceivers who roamed the wilderness in search of the gullible.

The Hebrew word for serpent, Nachash, is both a noun and an adjective which means shining one, brazen, serpent or anyone who practices divination, the shining stars of the ancient world.

It is no small coincidence that the term 'breath of life' is Egyptian in origin and the Pharaoh, who was able to talk, wore a serpent on his head and disputed with Moses about God..

OK so the point remains: it represents the KNOWLEDGE of the laws.
and relationship with AUTHORITY over laws.

And whether this process of humanity coming to terms with "who is responsible or in charge"
leads to either
* death and destruction by the Letter of the Law (which can be corrupted in the church or state by greed for power)
* life and lasting peace by the Spirit of the Laws (which is shared by love of Truth and Justice to restore peace and order
and harmonious/balanced relations between people and among humanity collectively)

Are you okay saying that the downfall of humanity
is fighting over defending our freedom from the fear of tyranny or takeover by "other groups"

All this "tribal warfare" and competition, putting interests
of one's self or one's identity/group above others and other people
doing the same out of fear of being dominated as well.

So this is the vicious cycle that goes round and round.

Do you agree that the "selfish ego" side of humanity is what
leads to killing, crime, violence, oppression and suffering in the world
and continues the division in class by rich or poor, powerful or powerless, etc etc.

So if we are going to teach salvation/peace and freedom from slavery/suffering/sins of the past
we need to get over all this destructive sick behavior.

Do you agree the point is to seek justice to correct injustice, to seek good will to overcome ill will,
and to resolve conflicts in peace to prevent violence and war,
to restore and improve health to prevent sickness and death.

No, the downfall of humanity is not fighting to defend freedom from tyranny and oppression. When Jesus taught to turn the other cheek he was not teaching that Christians cannot defend themselves against violence or even the threat of violence.. The law about seeking justice against violence starts with life for life, limb for limb, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. A slap on the face isn't even on the list and at the time a slap on the face was how slaves were treated and was considered a great insult and not an act of violence. Jesus was just saying don't seek retribution for an insult.

As far as the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law, it is not about discarding the law in its entirety by summing it up with just the suggestion to be a nice person. Each law has a literal meaning and each law has deeper implications that reveal a sublime wisdom and specific teaching for each subject that can never be summed up by just being nice.

Each creature described in kosher law, clean or unclean, has specific traits that make it so. Without the correct knowledge of the deeper implications, the spirit of the law, it is impossible to fulfill the law and receive the promise of eternal life for compliance.

In many cases one cannot conform to the letter of the law without violating the spirit of the same law and one cannot even know the spirit of any given law without first discerning the deeper implications which sometimes require a person to be not so nice..

And yes, I would agree about the "selfish ego" and I relate it to the evil inclination, which is the subject of what is commanded to be circumcised, the flesh of the foreskin of the heart which we now know means the selfish inclinations of the mind.

And finally, God is in charge of judging and enforcing his own laws. Humans not required to punish or reward at all.

The only way to be freed from the burden of the law, which is the promised maledictions for disobedience, is by conforming to the spirit of the law as revealed by Jesus and encapsulated in his command to eat his flesh, a direct reference to Kosher law and a sublime teaching about how to correctly comply with its very specific demands.

 

[Justin Davis]

Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . . I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.

That would be because you never asked about it.

I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.

And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?

Why do you have the idea of God in your head?

See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:

All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.

But you don’t believe that true, do you?

It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.

All you want to do is argue. I'm not trying to prove anything. There's no bait and switch. There's nothing oblique or shifty about my style, you paranoid schizophrenic, though in all serious, I know you to be a narcissist at the very least and perhaps a sociopath. I'm dead serious.

The objective facts of cognitive realty speak for themselves. I don't need prove anything that you yourself cannot see. But you don't care what the objective facts of cognitive reality tell you, so you're a useless bore. What does one do with a bore who calls an axiomatic fact of logic a boogie man, eh?

If God's existence cannot be logically ruled out than its inverse that God does not exist is also illogical. They're the same assertion. That's not a boogie man. That's an objective fact of cognitive reality. You quibble over everything, and you're subject to go postal atheist for no reason. You have yet to acknowledge your irrational behavior for it is. You raised the issue of definitions. You raised the alleged contradiction regarding the connotations of the term atheist. You! I was showing you something that you might come to grasp the principle of identity that follows from the five things, and in the light of that, discuss the mind-brain dichotomy. You cannot do that if you're going ignore the objective facts of cognitive realty. You cannot to be trusted to tell the truth.

A normal, intellectually honest person doesn't go boogie man postal in the face of something like that and then insult the person who pointed that out to him. A normal, intellectually honest person says: "Wow! I never noticed that before; the assertion of atheism is comprehensively contrary to the fundamental laws of thought." And that was the third time you did that kind of thing.

Goodbye.

Yeah, this is the vibe I got from your pontificating earlier in the thread. Which is why I was initially reluctant to step in your bullshit. I need to learn to trust my instincts.

See. Look at you. You know what he just told you is the truth, and you still lie about what you did and blame him. How sick is that?

You still don't understand anything. You still think this is about winning an argument. Rawlings just wanted to pursue the organic laws of human thought with you on the mind-brain thing because he credited you with the knowledge to guide the way, taking you at your word as a gentleman. I get him because I know what he cares about. The truth! I've followed his posts. Understood what he's all about. He's doesn't say anything to win argument but to simply show what logic tells us. You have no idea what a total jerk you are. That's why I got pissed with you and all the rest of the liars on this thread, including QW making up crap, and all the personal and hateful attacks that have come from you atheists and the closed-minded jerks who just spout whatever they think wins an argument.

Rawlings doesn't care about anything so stupid as trying to win an argument, you fool. Rawlings is telling you he can't trust you after all because you won't even tell yourself the truth about something as simple as an inverse axiom, boogie man, you sick trick. He's not bragging when he tells you what has been shown on this thread by following the universal principle of identity. Rawlings is not trying to win an argument. He's not trying to prove something except where the logic of the organic laws of thought given to us by God take us, wherever it leads. The only one gets this beside me and Rawlings is emilynghiem, which is true even though she annoyed me when she listened to Hollie's lies about other things. But that doesn't matter to what is true about the rest.