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

[dblack]

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!

And of course ....

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!

I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!

You start with indefensible preconceptions that are purely subjective and think your right and say you're absolutely right.

No, I don't.

 

[Justin Davis]

If you say so.

I know so. You're wrong about everything. Wrong, wrong, wrong. . . . Nothing you said in that post made any sense at all. Do the mathematical constructs, axioms and theorems of geometry, algebra, trigonometry and calculus, and the metaphysical-ontological constructs, axioms and theorems of logic, definition, differentiation and so on......have to be established first in order to do science, before any coherent scientific methodology can be developed or established. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Who defined science and it's structure? Do we get the rules of justification and inference from science? No, no, no, no, no, no. Where does all that happen? Philosophy. Philosophers did all that. The first job of philosophy is the mathematics and semantics of thought and the rules of thought that work so we don't think stupid things like you or get stupid stuff from science like you. And lots of times in history it was philosophers who detected faulty theories and badly intuited hypotheses in the physical sciences and in the biological and social sciences especially that would have otherwise wasted lots of time and energy on losers. And what are the philosophers of science doing today? They continue to develop new mathematical paradigms and new theorems used by scientists. They also produce new forms and theories of logic to enhance scientific methodology. They also check scientists' homework to make sure faulty correlations are not being mistaken for actual cause-and-effect relationships. Scientists didn’t develop chaos theory or the mathematical foundation for quantum physics which alerted the scientists who did develop it scientifically to the possibilities. Philosophers of mathematical and conceptual theory did that. Scientists don’t do those things. Philosophers do.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!

And of course ....

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!

I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!

And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is personal bullshit out of nowhere.

So you're saying that empirically verifiable statement A is falsified by this: "Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner! And of course ...."

And empirically verifiable statement B is falsified by this: "... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant! I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!"

I do see error of my ways though. What's been falsified here is this statement of mine: "And I see the lack of intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are obviously objectively logical, historical and academic, not subjective opinion, and therefore, things that may be empirically verified is personal bullshit."

That's all wrong. It should read: "And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a perpetual little boy, albeit, a girlish, petulant little snot still in diapers whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is the baby talk of tizzy fits."

 

[G.T.]

"God is the source of knowledge" is not objective.

 

[Hollie]

If you say so.

I know so. You're wrong about everything. Wrong, wrong, wrong. . . . Nothing you said in that post made any sense at all. Do the mathematical constructs, axioms and theorems of geometry, algebra, trigonometry and calculus, and the metaphysical-ontological constructs, axioms and theorems of logic, definition, differentiation and so on......have to be established first in order to do science, before any coherent scientific methodology can be developed or established. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Who defined science and it's structure? Do we get the rules of justification and inference from science? No, no, no, no, no, no. Where does all that happen? Philosophy. Philosophers did all that. The first job of philosophy is the mathematics and semantics of thought and the rules of thought that work so we don't think stupid things like you or get stupid stuff from science like you. And lots of times in history it was philosophers who detected faulty theories and badly intuited hypotheses in the physical sciences and in the biological and social sciences especially that would have otherwise wasted lots of time and energy on losers. And what are the philosophers of science doing today? They continue to develop new mathematical paradigms and new theorems used by scientists. They also produce new forms and theories of logic to enhance scientific methodology. They also check scientists' homework to make sure faulty correlations are not being mistaken for actual cause-and-effect relationships. Scientists didn’t develop chaos theory or the mathematical foundation for quantum physics which alerted the scientists who did develop it scientifically to the possibilities. Philosophers of mathematical and conceptual theory did that. Scientists don’t do those things. Philosophers do.

Did you realize that none of tirade makes any sense?

 

[dblack]

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!

And of course ....

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!

I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!

And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is personal bullshit out of nowhere.

So you're saying that empirically verifiable statement A is falsified by this: "Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner! And of course ...."

And empirically verifiable statement B is falsified by this: "... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant! I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!"

I do see error of my ways though. What's been falsified here is this statement of mine: "And I see the lack of intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are obviously objectively logical, historical and academic, not subjective opinion, and therefore, things that may be empirically verified is personal bullshit."

That's all wrong. It should read: "And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a perpetual little boy, albeit, a girlish, petulant little snot still in diapers whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is the baby talk of tizzy fits."

Hehe.... Don't piss yourself there, Rawly. I'm not saying "that empirically verifiable statement A is falsified by ..." I'm saying, you're a douchebag. I gave up on having an intelligent conversation with you several days ago.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

Excuse me. I have no interest whatsoever in convincing liars and snots. Let them be liars and snots. As Justin pointed out earlier, who in their right mind wastes any time on trying to convince liars and snots? My comments to the liars and snots only goes to exposing them to be liars and snots from time to time when it suits my purpose. Boss doesn’t fall into that category, by the way. Boss sincerely believes what he believes; notwithstanding, when he's wrong about things that are empirically verifiable, I will tell him so. I don't lie to people or pretend that subjective mush is absolute truth. And there is in fact poetry and music and beauty and passion in real logic, the logic of God. Subjective mush is the garbage of pride and arrogance and deceit and hate. Garbage in, garbage out, and the exposure of people's garbage pisses them off. Always has, always will. That's just the way it is.

 

[Hollie]

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

Excuse me. But this nanny stuff in the face of the arrogance of liars and snots is tiresome. I have no interest whatsoever in convincing liars and snots. Let them be liars and snots. As Justin pointed out earlier, who in their right mind wastes any time on trying to convince liars and snots? My comments to the liars and snots only goes to exposing them to be liars and snots from time to time when it suits my purpose. And there is in fact poetry and music and beauty and passion in real logic, the logic of God. Subjective mush is the garbage of pride and arrogance and deceit and hate. Garbage in, garbage out, and the exposure of people's garbage pisses them off. Always has, always will. That's just the way it is.

So, basically, you're just incensed that all your efforts at proselytizing have been a waste of time.

Your masters at Kingdom Hall are going to be very upset.

 

[Justin Davis]

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!

And of course ....

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!

I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!

And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is personal bullshit out of nowhere.

So you're saying that empirically verifiable statement A is falsified by this: "Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner! And of course ...."

And empirically verifiable statement B is falsified by this: "... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant! I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!"

I do see error of my ways though. What's been falsified here is this statement of mine: "And I see the lack of intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are obviously objectively logical, historical and academic, not subjective opinion, and therefore, things that may be empirically verified is personal bullshit."

That's all wrong. It should read: "And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a perpetual little boy, albeit, a girlish, petulant little snot still in diapers whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is the baby talk of tizzy fits."

Hehe.... Don't piss yourself there, Rawly. I'm not saying "that empirically verifiable statement A is falsified by ..." I'm saying, you're a douchebag. I gave up on having an intelligent conversation with you several days ago.

So a douchebag is someone who is being civil to you, allowing that your definitions are fine, respectfully answers your questions, and gives you credit for having more expertise than him about the philosophy of mind? And the guy who out of nowhere goes postal Hollie and calls him a "fucking idiot" because he couldn't understand something is not the douchebag. Yeah, that makes sense. I wanted to get into that with you as well and see what you could teach me too but not after seeing that. You are one messed up dude.

 

[Justin Davis]

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

I have no interest whatsoever in convincing liars and snots. Let them be liars and snots. As Justin pointed out earlier, who in their right mind wastes any time on trying to convince liars and snots? My comments to the liars and snots only goes to exposing them to be liars and snots from time to time when it suits my purpose. And there is in fact poetry and music and beauty and passion in real logic, the logic of God. Subjective mush is the garbage of pride and arrogance and deceit and hate. Garbage in, garbage out, and the exposure of people's garbage pisses them off. Always has, always will. That's just the way it is.

So, basically, you're just incensed that all your efforts at proselytizing have been a waste of time.

Your masters at Kingdom Hall are going to be very upset.

The only ones incensed around here are the free thinking atheists who like to think of themselves being superior to everyone and don't like a theist proving that theism is rational and atheism is irrational. Yeah I get that psychology. Look on this thread and what you see is hateful atheists who talk about very little else but personal garbage.

 

[LittleNipper]

From: Associated Press, "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God", ABC News, 9 December 2004: A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives... "[God] could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification"... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew... Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote... Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," [atheistic webpage author Richard] Carrier said [infidels.org]... A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

 

[LittleNipper]

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Every painting has a painter. Every sculpture has s sculptor. Every book has a author. Every cake has a baker. Every clock has a maker. Every machine has an engineer/designer.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

From: Associated Press, "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God", ABC News, 9 December 2004: A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives... "[God] could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification"... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew... Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote... Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," [atheistic webpage author Richard] Carrier said [infidels.org]... A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Yep. Abiogenesis is pipedream: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[Boss]

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.

Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.

He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.

Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.

"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.

He wrote: "[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."

In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that God exists! is, of course, a logical proof that God exists! The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that logically proves it to be true. In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic. If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.

It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.

Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed? Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed? Can I find anything about it on the Internet? Do you have a link? I'd like to study it

In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.

You write: " 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."

Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.​

Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.

Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

 

[BreezeWood]

That's all wrong. It should read: "And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a perpetual little boy, albeit, a girlish, petulant little snot still in diapers whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is the baby talk of tizzy fits."

what is distressing is that then you and Davis revert to your Christianity with the same furver of irrationality you accuse everyone else of.


proving God =/= Christianity

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

The problem I have with this, Emily, is that objectivity means objectivity. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.

The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.

An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of number 4, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind because of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.

Word.

And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.

Pratchett is not a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order is the evidence for God's existence. That's lunacy! He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all. It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.

But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.

 

[Hollie]

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

The problem I have with this, Emily, is that objectivity means objectivity. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.

The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.

An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of number 4, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind because of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.

Word.

And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.

Pratchett is not a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order is the evidence for God's existence. That's lunacy! He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all. It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.

But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.

It seems M. Pompous Rawling is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.

 

[dblack]

The problem I have with this, Emily, is that objectivity means objectivity. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.

The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline.

QFT

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It seems M. Pompous Rawling is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.

So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds. .