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

[Ellipsis]

TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

I learn something new every day.

 

[Ellipsis]

Dear peach174 and Hollie:
How I interpret the immaculate conception
is that it represents being born without carrying past "karma" from previous generations.
The rest of us carry issues from our mothers and fathers, generational or national karma,
conditions from our environments etc.

The point of Jesus or Justice being pure is that it is Justice for ALL people
regardless of our situational biases. So it is Universal Justice that is not conditioned
as man's justice is conditioned.

That is what Jesus, his "coming and return" represents: a Higher Justice than man's worldly biased justice.
Perfect Justice that is truly inclusive universal and equal, which is beyond any of us
who are born and carry BIASES from conditions or karma from the past.

A strugle to advance to the next evolutionary step?

 

[G.T.]

Dumbass Rawlings still hasn't refuted other possibilities, absolutely this rendering his "axiom" a bald faced assertion. Derp derp derp

 

[Boss]

What we all know to be necessarily true is that 2 + 2 = 4 in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable belief is knowledge about the human condition, something we know to be true about human cognition!

I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.

My argument was, we can only believe truth, we can't ever know truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be THE truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.

Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be possible truths.

2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't know this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we believe 2+2=4, therefore, it does.

Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't know for certain unless we have faith in what we believe is certain.

There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.

As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.

 

[BreezeWood]

The idea in your mind and in my mind and in everybody else's mind logically holds that He exists!

no more than the possibility for any metaphysical existence including one's own Spirit - that is why chritianity creates a physical entity to solidify as real what otherwise are their meritless beliefs. - Sinner.


no God is necessary and is factually exclusionary for the "hardwired" pursuit of life's existence / extension post physiology and if not possible the existence of a nondescript Almighty becomes as relevant as Santa Clause.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dumbass Rawlings still hasn't refuted other possibilities, absolutely this rendering his "axiom" a bald faced assertion. Derp derp derp

See Post #2599

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, G.T.
I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, G.T.

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that logically proves the opposite of what it asserts. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like G.T., are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG argument actually proves.

No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves given the nature of the Object of the TAG are the following: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are biologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic? Hmm.

Why is that in our head as an axiom?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.

 

[G.T.]

Dumbass Rawlings still hasn't refuted other possibilities, absolutely this rendering his "axiom" a bald faced assertion. Derp derp derp

See Post #2599

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom! I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, G.T.
I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, G.T.

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that logically proves the opposite of what it asserts. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like G.T., are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG argument actually proves.

No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves given the nature of the Object of the TAG are the following: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are biologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic? Hmm.

Why is that in our head as an axiom?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.

You're a fool.

Theres no proof existence was created, therefore your "axiom" isn't an axiom, dumb fuck.

 

[Hollie]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

...
Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

Dear M.D. Rawlings:
I think you are nitpicking on terms.
Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.

What this REALLY means is
"proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"

You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
"logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"

The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!

God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.

Once someone sees God = something false and negative
then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
define God = something else

So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
is to AGREE what the variables stand for.

When I speak with a Buddhist
God = may equal Wisdom

With some Christians
God = love and with some God = truth
Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice

Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
I find that
God = truth and
Jesus = justice
works better to align with what they already believe in.

So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.

You may have to set the starting values
differently for some people, rather than
using only one God = generic global identity

Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
because that is the most common,
and you will reach the largest audience, fine.

What about someone who is on Saxophone.
what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
play and learn the same song?

If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
it to be adjusted to G.

Some people aren't using a major key
but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!

it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
their key and music may be different, too!

I love you, Emily, but I'm not nitpicking over terms. My terms are the objectively refined terms of accuracy and precision.

If persons wish to use other terms that work, that's fine with me. A rose is a rose. Unlike some, I do not make demands or gratuitously quibble over terms, ever! (And right now those who do make it a habit of quibbling over obvious things are rolling their eyes, because they roll their eyes over everything, except what matters) Use whatever terms you want. I reserve the right to show whether or not the terms being used by others are valid or accurate with regard to the factual and logical concerns about any given objective. Inaccurate, imprecise or ambiguous terms lead to errors in logic and fact. As long as the terms being used are in fact objectively and definitively accurate and mutually understood, that's great. There should be no debate over any of this.

Otherwise, I'm easy that way in spite of what others have falsely implied in some sense or another.

Frankly, I don’t even know why you're saying this to me of all people. Me? I'm trying to use terms that are the most logically and objectively accurate, which means I'm trying to use terms that are definitively unambiguous and unbiased. The only things I can think of that have you saying this are the following:

1. dblack quibbled with me over the term cosmological order after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using his terms! I don't know why he went postal.

2. G.T., quibbled with me over the term cognition. Are you kidding me? In this case, cognition is the only term in the English language that comprehensively denotes the thing that is meant. Consciousness would be the second best term in the English language, but not appropriate in this case because it leaves necessary connotations that are meant out.

3. Foxfyre suggested that I'm using terms, without a clue as to what my premise is, not for the sake of being objectively and comprehensively accurate and precise, but for some small and petty reason. That's a disgustingly false allegation. It's mealy-mouthed bullshit.

4. Blurring the line between logic and science and what they're used for, blurring the line between philosophy and science, saying that philosophy is bullshit, saying that we don't need the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological definitions and standards of justification that only philosophy--not science!--can provide, saying that philosophy does not have primacy over or does not precede science: leads to the idiocy that there is no such thing as objectively demonstrable facts of logic or objectively demonstrable facts of science.

That's factually and logically false. I will not accept that and neither should any other pragmatically commonsensical person.

Logic is used to prove or disprove things. More to the point, logic is used to divulge what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.

The scientific method is used to verify or falsify notions about empirical things that the available evidentiary data and logic appear to recommend at any given time.

Folks have been muddling the pertinent facts regarding these two things in order to make arguments that are subjective and false. I will not tolerate that.

Word.

You will not tolerate that? Sure you will, tough guy.

Your pointless TAG argument is a joke. It's meaningless, it's viciously circular and its configured to yield a predefined conclusion. You really shouldn't expect that people who can discern rationality from fundamentalist dogma would accept such a phony argument as yours.

OK Hollie can we substitute something else for this whole TAG set up?

What do you need to see to know that the teachings in Christianity about God are real and valid?

Let's start with what you need and can follow
and try to find a way to make something work here.

I suggested working on proving that spiritual healing is valid
and does NOT require people to either convert BEFORE or convert AFTER.

Would that help?

Would it help to show that Jews Christians and Muslims can all
agree in Christ by following the steps of forgiveness and reconciliation?

What about peacemaking between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans?
prolife and prochoice?

What would help you to see that there is divine Grace in the world
that if we forgive one another then we can reach agreed understanding of truth
that TRANSCENDS and voids all these conflicts we had without that forgiveness.

Name some things you would need to see resolved
before you believed that a greater force of love/truth/God was uniting people as one.

I am happy to include those examples in the proof
to reach as many people as possible to show how this works in real life!

Now, Hollie, on the other hand may not see it.

It's easy to see. Your argument is bankrupt.

 

[Hollie]

OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:

Emily, I laid down foundation upon foundation on all of this. Most of the atheists on this thread know what I have shown them is in fact universally, objectively and axiomatically true for all. I know that because I can read the signals of their ever-shifting evasions. This is something the subjectivist doesn't get. Those of us practiced in the art of objectivity can see right through them. I will not allow them to deceive others. They have no moral right to attack my reputation or credibility in an attempt to close the minds others to what I'm sharing (and I have warning for Foxfrye, a theist, next). But it's not about me. They have no moral right to lie about what they now know to be true out of pride and thereby STEAL the right of others to see what belongs to all us all. NO MORAL RIGHT!

They see it, Emily. Don't be deceived.

On the other note: that one cannot possibly know these things until one has experienced these things for themselves . . . of course, I understand that, better than most, precisely because I don't do subjective mush. In others words, I can see the wheels turning in the atheist's head.

Actually, what you showed are some of the dangers of religious extremism.

You shouldn't think that your circular, self-refuting arguments are at all persuasive. They're just amateurish and drenched in the fervor of the angry zealot.

You have no moral right to conceal, obscure, manipulate and deceive others out of seeing this truth about human cognition regarding a question about God and truth. You are a liar: you, G.T. and dblack are liars.

How sad for you. The entirety of your comments amounts to cutting and pasting the same, tired drivel.

 

[Hollie]

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!

Don't make me use gargantuan text!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The idea in your mind and in my mind and in everybody else's mind logically holds that He exists!

no more than the possibility for any metaphysical existence including one's own Spirit - that is why chritianity creates a physical entity to solidify as real what otherwise are their meritless beliefs. - Sinner.


no God is necessary and is factually exclusionary for the "hardwired" pursuit of life's existence / extension post physiology and if not possible the existence of a nondescript Almighty becomes as relevant as Santa Clause.

.

Why do you keep repeating this? I don't even really know what it means anyway. It's convoluted. If God exists that's significant. "The Seven Things" (with the two that we can now add to the list) are in fact objectively and axiomatically true for all sound and developmentally mature minds.

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Post 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!

Don't make me use gargantuan text!

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Post 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What we all know to be necessarily true is that 2 + 2 = 4 in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable belief is knowledge about the human condition, something we know to be true about human cognition!

I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.

My argument was, we can only believe truth, we can't ever know truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be THE truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.

Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be possible truths.

2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't know this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we believe 2+2=4, therefore, it does.

Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't know for certain unless we have faith in what we believe is certain.

There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.

As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.

I'm not brow beating you. What you said is not objectively true. It's still not objectively true, and because it's not objectively true, it gets in the way of allowing people to see what is objectively true every time they think about these things. You don't have the moral right to superimpose your subjective views and obscure the objective facts regarding the apprehensions that belong to us all about God and truth. I've listed the things that are objectively true in the above. These things alone utterly falsify your premise.

This is not personal with me. It's not about you or me. It's about the truth for us all.

 

[dblack]

I'm not brow beating you. What you said is not objectively true. It's still not objectively true, and because it's not objectively true, it gets in the way of allowing people to see what is objectively true every time they think about these things. You don't have the moral right to superimpose your subjective views and obscure the objective facts regarding the apprehensions that belong to us all about God and truth. I've listed the things that are objectively true in the above. These things alone utterly falsify your premise.

This is not personal with me. It's not about you or me. It's about the truth for us all.

Boss has every right to express his views here, jackass. We all do. And here's where you are utterly deluded -- Your opinions are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Get off your fucking high horse and show some of that humility Christians are suppose to embrace.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

 

[G.T.]

Wow....its coming unhinged.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm not brow beating you. What you said is not objectively true. It's still not objectively true, and because it's not objectively true, it gets in the way of allowing people to see what is objectively true every time they think about these things. You don't have the moral right to superimpose your subjective views and obscure the objective facts regarding the apprehensions that belong to us all about God and truth. I've listed the things that are objectively true in the above. These things alone utterly falsify your premise.

This is not personal with me. It's not about you or me. It's about the truth for us all.

Boss has every right to express his views here, jackass. We all do. And here's where you are utterly deluded -- Your opinions are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Get off your fucking high horse and show some of that humility Christians are suppose to embrace.

I didn't say he didn't, always twisting and dodging and lying, eh? You get off your high horse, Mister, you and Fox!

I said he had no moral right to superimpose his subjective views as if they were absolutes, which do in fact deny the reality of the things that are objectively true for us all, not just some, but all.

He's arguing the opposite and that is false. You know that's false too, and yesterday, in spite of the fact that YOU KNEW these things were true, you made yourself a party to the mealy mouthed mush of Fox's blather about the supposed irrationality and incomprehensibility of my posts.

LIAR! That's how gossiping hens behave. You know these objective facts of human cognition are coherently, objectively, axiomatically and absolutely true for all human knowers/thinkers!

You knew that what she said was not true.

As for her blather about the more complex issues regarding number 4 (the rational and mathematical ramifications of infinity) of the now Seven Things with the actual fact of the TAG established, with G.T.'s bullshit out of the way: she's wrong about those too and so are you.

More lies. In truth, you simply don't understand it. I do. Emily does. Justin does, and there are a few others. You don't have the moral right to call what you damn well know you don't understand well enough false!

You don't have the moral right to falsely accuse me of things I have not done in some sick attempt to discredit the truth that belongs to us all. It's not about me or you. It's about what we may know or see about the idea of God in our minds. Everyone has a right to see these things and make up their minds for themselves, because we're not talking about my mere opinions.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE AND NECESSARILY TRUE FOR ALL.

You don't have the moral right to behave in such a way as to thwart their free expression.

For saying that the things I shown are irrational or incomprehensible is a lie. It's the same thing as saying what you well know to be true is not.

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MR. HIGH HORSE, TO LIE ABOUT THESE THINGS AND STEAL THEM FROM OTHERS?

 

[dblack]

Wow....its coming unhinged.

meltdown mania.

 

[Justin Davis]

Objection, your honor.

God can be set to equate = Wisdom or Truth
God = Life or Universe (I use God = Universe to talk with my Atheist friend to
say that the Universe is trying to work with him, and help him when I mean the Natural process is working.
I DON't have to limit God to just "Creator")

Can we agree that God can be Wisdom,
God can be Love, God can be Life or Nature.

Objection, your honor. Creator includes all those things you listed. The issue here is Creator, that's how we see that God is telling us in our hearts that He exists. We can't deny the existence of the Creator logically because he doesn't let us do that. You're objecting to God's way of telling us He's here.