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

[Treeshepherd]

responding to Boss...

That's the Schrodinger's Cat paradox, right?

Is an electron an object with a mass in orbit? Is it a wave with a charge? A standing wave? Cloud? It's all these things at once.

Am I an individual, or is the universe on indivisible continuous unity?

" We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections." -Niels Bohr

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.'' -Bohr

"The old saying of the two kinds of truth. To the one kind belongs statements so simple and clear that the opposite assertion obviously could not be defended. The other kind, the so-called 'deep truths', are statements in which the opposite also contains deep truth." -Bohr

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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

that is what I was saying the OP had concluded by posting the Thread - Christianity etall has not proven the existence of God, is there something else that will ... the intent for the Thread.

Christianity has failed emilynghiem, it is your best interest to understand why.

.

DISAGREE Breezewood!
Thanks for your clear explanation which helps.

Christianity helps explain God to others who understand that way.
So it HAS succeeded.

I will cite two examples that have changed and saved lives:
A. example 1. Francis MacNutt did not think that prayer for removing demons was real
but thought it was dark age myth. When he discovered that people could work in teams
to follow this process of natural healing, he wrote a book in 1974 and has updated it in 1999
to include medical research on Rheumatoid Arthritis. He and his wife have counseled trained
and shared the healing process with thousands of cases of people who learned how to receive healing
which is natural and consistent with science and does not reject medicine as the false faith healers twist it.

B. example 2 Dr. Phillip Goldfedder who is a neurosurgeon
was shown how Spiritual healing works by a Christian practitioner,
and once he got that this is real and works by natural science, it
changed his practice. so now he helps people full time to receive healing
and it works better than surgery. he is able to help people by phone
and once they understand they canshare this with other people so it multiplies.

C. another example that isn't finished yet
Scott Peck found out that this exorcism/deliverance process healed two schizophrenic
patients that were so severely psychotic with demonic voices taking over their personalities
they were deemed incureable. so he wrote books descrbing his observations of this
treatment and cure of these patients that changed his mind
and he urged that formal research and development be conducted to integrate
this therapy into medical practice.
this isn't finished yet, he was convinced and changed his mind
but each person would have to see it is real before they change their mind.

BreezeWood the key is forgiveness.
in order to let go and see this Christian spiritual healing is real
and consistent with science and medicine, the human brain
and conscience has to let go and forgive all the things that told us otherwise.

tht is what is blocking the proof: unforgiven conflict and division

and guess what Christianity teaches to overcome these
so it is the reason people have come to peace,
the forgiveness taught in Christianity that is also
the key to letting go taught in AA and other systems.
it is part of human nature and process

so the proof is in the works, and each person comes
to a conclusion a different way.

Christianity is succeeding and so is science
and Buddhism and all the ways people use to understand
the laws of human nature. they are all working together.

 

[G.T.]

MD continues to be a liar as to what ive said done or conceded

Lost all respect.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Doctrine is one aspect of religion.

IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.

It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.

 

[G.T.]

Also tag is not a logical proof, it begs the question. Everyone rational knows this.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.

BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through. GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it. I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument. At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above. Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason. In any event, you don't have to take my word on it. Just think it through. Anyone can see that it's true. It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.

In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why. It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon. It's objectively and universally true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind. It's an axiom. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought. That's just the way it is.

MD: It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof - It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon ...

but the Christian God is stated as a physical being, so there is a criteria for Christians as yourself to provide the scientific proof for that Deities being, that you have not established.

for centuries ... how much time is time enough ?

that's the point, there is a Logical proof for a God that proves it is not the Christian deity, logically and as QW and others point out logic alone is not a proof for anything only an insinuation.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Breezewood,

I just went on a 400 mile walk/pilgrimage/adventure in September. I came to the Pulgas Water Temple, where water from the Sierra is pumped into a reservoir for usage in the SF Bay Area. Upon the temple is inscribed a few lines of scripture from Isaiah; "I make waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, as drink for my people". I took that to heart for the next 300 miles of my walk. On a literal level, yes, it was important to find water. I had great appreciation for the water I found along the way. But, Isaiah is speaking on multiple levels. It was the living water, in a poetic sense (spiritual strength) that I needed also in order to walk 20 miles a day up and down hills with 30 lbs on my back.

Is the Christian God a physical being? I don't think you can say that's true for all Christians. I'm more of a pagan druid, but I have been educated in the Catholic faith, and they didn't teach Biblical literalism. Quite the opposite, except on a very few main points. To me, God is best described as a first principle of the universe, like the Tao, non-material, but the source of matter... and the further I go on describing God the further I get from accuracy.

I find it interesting when atheists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible,seemingly just as often as fundamentalist believers.

 

[Justin Davis]

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
― Rabindranath Tagore

Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.

You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
"Oh, okay honey. "
"Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
"Umm, never mind."

But you're talking about this in terms of proofs in the ultimate sense of veracity are you not? I think I'm saying that right. Rawlings is not asserting any of this in those terms at all. He never has. He knows better and so do I, though, to be honest I'm just a novice at this. He's merely talking about these things in terms of what the principle of identity recommends and let that take us wherever it goes without bias.

 

[Treeshepherd]

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things


Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations"
-Tao te Ching Chapter 1

 

[Justin Davis]

Rawlings: Treesshepherd appears to be suggesting that your way of doing this is wrong or least that's the impression I got from his eloquent post.

But to the trogs living down in the cave, nothing that the philosopher says makes any sense. His speech is gibberish to them, and nothing he says is relevant to what they understand to be reality. Because the course of logic is set by an original premise (often, and in this case, erroneous), the philosopher is deemed to be illogical and irrational. He is deemed to be a believer in Santa Claus, so to speak.

Can you please explain this to us in the sense that he's talking about if I'm saying that right.

 

[Justin Davis]

How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?

That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.

He doesn't. What he does is begin with the fundamental facts of existence and the immediately pertinent imperatives of the problem of origin. It follows that the potentiality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out, but not only that, it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought. From that point on, the principle of identity allows for only one objection: the weak assertion of a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority that remains rationally irreconcilable with the same laws of thought.

But then it is possible to go on from there and objectively demonstrate why the rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. The rest is up to the eye the beholder, not with regard to the veracity of the evidence, of course, as human consciousness does not have primacy over the realities of existence, but with regard to the quality of the beholder's moral and intellectual integrity.

"it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought"

How cool is that? According to M. Pompous Rawling, any arguments against Rawling's gods is actually an argument in support of Rawling's gods.

How do we know this?

Simple. According to M. Pompous Rawling, "because I say so" is the only requirement, or possibly his manufactured version of "organic logic", as opposed to inorganic logic.

Hollie, you're still being unnecessarily antagonistic and for no good reason. Rawlings told me to cool it down and Emily's advice makes sense. Rawlings is not a pompous man. That's just not true. It only appears that way to some people who hear what they want to rather than what he's really saying.

 

[Hollie]

.
there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.

BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through. GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it. I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument. At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above. Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason. In any event, you don't have to take my word on it. Just think it through. Anyone can see that it's true. It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.

In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why. It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon. It's objectively and universally true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind. It's an axiom. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought. That's just the way it is.

Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs.

Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.

Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic Rawling’isms” is:
“it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”


Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what M. Pompous Rawling rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.

I’ve noticed that M. Pompous Rawling is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.


This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.


Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.


The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”

 

[Justin Davis]

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?

A word to the wise: it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.

Cool. Rawling has a groupie.

I equally back you up Hollie, Justin, dblack and MD.
Establishing a consensus means we all have to agree.
We are not going to get there without including all our points and resolving all our objections.

Go, Team!
I'm rooting for all of you to score, to make your touchdowns,
and homeruns. Each player needs to make those free throws and goals.
We are supposed to help each other to score, not cut each other down.

We are on the same team, just playing different positions and roles.

Trying to help each other to throw straight, and to go for the openings,
will stop players from stumbling and fumbling on the field. We still have
to stop each other from making preventable mistakes, but the purpose is
to help each other score not to knock players out of the game over penalties.

Actually I will take your advice and be nice. I was just really frustrated by the posts of those who dogmatically refuse to let themselves see what Rawlings is actually saying. Their posts are reactionary straw men. We are on page 103 of this thread and some are still saying the same false things over and over again. It's ridiculous. But I agree my insults don't help things.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

A word to the wise: it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.

Cool. Rawling has a groupie.

I equally back you up Hollie, Justin, dblack and MD.
Establishing a consensus means we all have to agree.
We are not going to get there without including all our points and resolving all our objections.

Go, Team!
I'm rooting for all of you to score, to make your touchdowns,
and homeruns. Each player needs to make those free throws and goals.
We are supposed to help each other to score, not cut each other down.

We are on the same team, just playing different positions and roles.

Trying to help each other to throw straight, and to go for the openings,
will stop players from stumbling and fumbling on the field. We still have
to stop each other from making preventable mistakes, but the purpose is
to help each other score not to knock players out of the game over penalties.

Actually I will take your advice and be nice. I was just really frustrated by the posts of those who dogmatically refuse to let themselves see what Rawlings is actually saying. Their posts are reactionary straw men. We are on page 103 of this thread and some are still saying the same false things over and over again. It's ridiculous. But I agree my insults don't help things.

Don't be too hard on yourself. I just suggested you cool it down a bit is all. We're still getting unacceptable behavior from GT of all people, calling me a liar about things that have been well-established on this thread, and Hollie's ongoing, gratuitous insults sans any sign of argumentation, though I see that he/she finally posted something of more substance. I will continue to forcefully point out what the truly close-minded among us are doing until they stop doing it, however, in a less confrontational tone. That does not mean that I will not employ sarcasm to drive the point home.

 

[Hollie]

1. 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.

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?

A word to the wise: it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.

Cool. Rawling has a groupie.

I equally back you up Hollie, Justin, dblack and MD.
Establishing a consensus means we all have to agree.
We are not going to get there without including all our points and resolving all our objections.

Go, Team!
I'm rooting for all of you to score, to make your touchdowns,
and homeruns. Each player needs to make those free throws and goals.
We are supposed to help each other to score, not cut each other down.

We are on the same team, just playing different positions and roles.

Trying to help each other to throw straight, and to go for the openings,
will stop players from stumbling and fumbling on the field. We still have
to stop each other from making preventable mistakes, but the purpose is
to help each other score not to knock players out of the game over penalties.

Actually I will take your advice and be nice. I was just really frustrated by the posts of those who dogmatically refuse to let themselves see what Rawlings is actually saying. Their posts are reactionary straw men. We are on page 103 of this thread and some are still saying the same false things over and over again. It's ridiculous. But I agree my insults don't help things.

Don't be too hard on yourself. I just suggested you cool it down a bit is all. We're still getting unacceptable behavior from GT of all people, calling me a liar about things that have been well-established on this thread, and Hollie's ongoing, gratuitous insults sans any sign of argumentation, though I see that he/she finally posted something of more substance. I will continue to forcefully point out what the truly close-minded among us are doing until they stop doing it, however, in a less confrontational tone. That does not mean that I will not employ sarcasm to drive the point home.

You poor dear. Are you upset that your frauds are exposed as such?

 

[G.T.]

You ARE a liar.

You continue to say I've 'conceded' to that I have not.

If you dispute that, instead of CONTINUING to lie, how about instead quote the post in question and I can correct any misconceptions you might have, like an adult would? No? That's too much to ask?

No, instead you continue the lie Or.misconception as though I don't even exist. Then don't feel that deserves an apology. It does.

Also "the five things the five things" syndrome you all have I've explained it twelve times over what you're incorrectly extrapolating from them, and instead of going into my counter points you simply say "nuh uh, you just don't get it!" Like a child while not attempting to take anything to task I've said about 'the five' in my post about 'the five' which I've linked you to several times now.

The dishonesty lies right at your doorstep. And I will continue to be equally an asshole until it stops.

That's how I roll.

P.s. the tag is irrational BC it begs the question

PSS Justin is acting like such a huge cheerleader its almost disgusting

PSS pages of pages of pages of saying 'I've shown' without ever actually 'showing',is why others are getting frustrated with you and also being assholes.

 

[sealybobo]

No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.

You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.

Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.

All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?

We are not reading the same theory of evolution.

Did you see that dogs are getting A LOT smarter? It is no surprise. Not only do the smarter dogs do better as far as breeding goes, it only makes sense that their intelligence would be accelerated because they live so close with us intelligent humans. They watch us, listen to us give them commands and they understand them. How long before dogs can talk?

 

[G.T.]

TAG's first premise is that without god there cannot be knowledge.

Since it doesn't have a proof of its own, it fails as a premise. TAG begs the question.

You cannot logically or otherwise assert that god is necessary FOR knowledge without ruling out other explanations ALSO using LOGIC PROOFS to rule them out, where the premises are absolute.

Where is the logical proof that knowledge can't "just exist?"

Not a lofty explanation about why it's unlikely, an explanation of why it CANNOT be, via ABSOLUTE premises.

Can't do it? Then you can't logically rule it out, and accept TAG's first premise because of the POSSIBILITY of the contrary.

And that's just ONE alternate possibility, of the MANY.

 

[sealybobo]

TAG's first premise is that without god there cannot be knowledge.

Since it doesn't have a proof of its own, it fails. TAG begs the question.

You cannot logically or otherwise assert that god is necessary FOR knowledge without ruling out other explanations ALSO WITH LOGIC PROOFS where the premises are absolute.

Where is the logical proof that knowledge can't "just exist?"

Not a lofty explanation about why it's unlikely, an explanation of why it CANNOT be, via ABSOLUTE premises.

Can't do it? Then you can't logically rule it out and accept TAG's first premise.

And that's just ONE alternate possibility, of the MANY.

Well if you believe god created all life and everything we see then of course you would also believe that without god there would be no knowledge either.

But first you have to prove there is a god to prove that without him there wouldn't be life let alone knowledge.

 

[G.T.]

TAG's first premise is that without god there cannot be knowledge.

Since it doesn't have a proof of its own, it fails. TAG begs the question.

You cannot logically or otherwise assert that god is necessary FOR knowledge without ruling out other explanations ALSO WITH LOGIC PROOFS where the premises are absolute.

Where is the logical proof that knowledge can't "just exist?"

Not a lofty explanation about why it's unlikely, an explanation of why it CANNOT be, via ABSOLUTE premises.

Can't do it? Then you can't logically rule it out and accept TAG's first premise.

And that's just ONE alternate possibility, of the MANY.

Well if you believe god created all life and everything we see then of course you would also believe that without god there would be no knowledge either.

But first you have to prove there is a god to prove that without him there wouldn't be life let alone knowledge.

Sentence #2 eggggggggsackleeeee