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

[Boss]

The Big Bang created "things". Spiritual energy not proven to have been needed.

Sounds like "magic" to me.

 

[BreezeWood]

This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others. It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.

you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.

.

the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.


The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!

"exists in our minds" ...

.

False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that God exits is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.

What you do with that is up to you.

False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that God exits is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.

no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.

.

The axiom is hardwired, at the very least, bioneurologically, as the fundamental laws of thought are universal. One can objectively and justifiably assert that. To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter. Nevertheless, this assertion in no way, shape or form necessarily precludes that the laws of thought persist above the level of the material realm of being.

R: To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter.

so it is your physiology you will be Admitting to the Everlasting and leaving your Spirit behind -

good luck with that Rawlings.

.

BreezeWood, I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit. I have never said that, ever! I am saying that the only thing I can OBJECTIVELY or SCIENTIFICALLY assert is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life in terms of physical nature, is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired. The rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, including the three laws of organic thought and the axioms thereof are bioneurologically hardwired. That's tautological true.

That is not controversial.

Stop quibbling, going in circles, talking banalities. Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.

I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit - is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life - is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.

are you suggesting there are any forms of life created by the Almighty that are not synonymous with a Spirit - and your Spirit is "hardwired" ?


is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life

that is what you conclude from your "7 Things" -

Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.

sorry, I'm just curious how Flora without a neurological tract becomes hardwired if it is not their Spirit you are talking about .... ( that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying ) and no you are not Hitler, you just remind me of that type of persuasion.

.

 

[Boss]

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss said:

'No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.'

Actually this is completely devoid of logic, as this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Actually, that's nonsense. It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.

So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.

Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.

As I have written elsewhere:

Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.​

All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!

In all forms of logic the proposition that from nothing, nothing comes would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.

Logic proceeds from justifiable true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.

The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!

Proceed, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.

 

[Boss]

I don't mock the concept of god, I question the answers that I'm given as pertaining to god. If someone ever gives me solid proof for a god, I'll have no problem believing there's a god in front of such proof. Can't be any fairer than that.

Well I have seen you mock and ridicule the concept of God and those who believe in God, but if you insist on denying it, that's fine.

What you are demanding is to be shown physical evidence (aka: solid proof) that God exists. If that could be done, or is ever done, then God ceases to be spiritual. So it's kind of a win/win proposition for you... either show you physical proof of God (impossible) or you won't believe in a spiritual God (default). And that is why you've constructed this false dichotomy. You know that God can't be physically proven and you don't accept spiritual nature.

 

[BreezeWood]

Dear Breezewood: Can you please reply to my questions below?
I am trying to resolve why we miscommunicated so badly
that you thought I was like Hitler which is the exact opposite of my approach
that is all inclusive and universalist, treating all people and views as equally important to the whole.

Also below is the humorous approach if that works better!
Here is the serious approach:

Dear Breezewood: I already posted a reply querying how you came up with
this comparison to Hitler which seems the exact opposite of my nature.

I apologize that the miscommunication between us got so far off the mark
that you got the opposite impression of what I was trying to say.

Please reply to that msg and explain how I am anything like Hitler,
I am most curious to know.

As for this message, I will try to backtrack and find out where we talked past
each other and crossed wires.

1. weren't you saying that the belief in the Christian God
was falsely hardwired?

if not I apologize because I thought you were
negating MD statement about God as Creator

2. Now I saw your msg where you are saying the Almighty exists
but that MD is misportraying God

So my questions are this
a. do you agree that MD's perception of God is hardwired or not
b. if it can change then why are you insulting him or me as if that is going
to inspire anyone to change?
c. if it cannot change then why are you insulting him or me
d. And WHY can't both ways of perceiving God co-exist?

What is WRONG with this
A. atheists and nontheists who see laws and nature in terms of science
B. Buddhist who see spiritual laws in terms of Wisdom and nature that is interconnected
C. pagans who may see the world as life energy in the Creation or Mother Earth itself
D. Christians who personify God as a Creator and distinguish this role from Creation
E. Constitutionalists who look at laws as coming from Natural Laws and Human Nature
where some attribute to God as the source and some say these laws are self-existent

Why can't we focus on the laws we DO agree with
and not haggle over how we see the source of where they came from?

Here is the silly response to your statement that made no sense to me, sorry.

Breezewood is to : Breezewood comparing Emily to Hitler
as
Emily is to : http://mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/440oolong.jpg

"I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a Bunny with a Pancake on its head"

there is no insult intended - to imply all are Sinners as yourself is foolhardy particularly when you are compared with what truly was and will "always" be and then find that objectionable.

Admission to the Everlasting is accomplished before you die not afterwards.


MD's hardwire is ludicrous, insane and factually immoral.

.

 

[Boss]

There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism.

I know... so why do you believe in such things?

 

[percysunshine]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.

.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.
LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?

smh

.

If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not proveable.

It is possible for things to have always existed and didn't have a beginning or end.

Boss it is possible and may be necessary to set up the proof process
WITHOUT assuming that God/Creation had a beginning since this is faith based.
As you said we cannot know truth, but can only believe.

I agree we can only believe truth and cannot know it. I also agree that God cannot be proven, but virtually nothing can be conclusively proven. We can only believe things are proven (or disproven.)

Studying the logic and parameters of the physical universe, it appears it was created. Some estimate it was around 4.5 billion years ago. The fundamental basis for this logical assumption is the motion of the universe and entropy. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no motion because it defies Newtonian laws of motion for that to be the case. So either the physical universe had a beginning, or something incredible set it into motion. In either case, this began a phenomenon we realize as time and a concept we know as reality.

Entropy is the other piece of evidence. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no entropy because it defies logic. You can't observe something going from order to chaos and conclude it eternally had order. If something is travelling a course it's illogical to say it remains stationary forever.

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

What I am saying is none of us was there when it happened.
So we can never prove it by empirical perception and senses.

If you are going to use Science to prove something,
I say use it to prove Spiritual Healing because that can be replicated
over and over to each person who asks to see it empirically.

The Big Bang cannot be replicated, it is only one event that happened in the past.

Spiritual Healing can be replicated and it will help each person and each case
that benefits from healing either ill conditions of the mind, body or relationships that are abusive or dysfunctional.

So that is a more practical application of Science to prove something.
Better to prove Spiritual Healing than argue over how Creation began
which was a one time event and cannot be replicated where we can observe the process.

With Spiritual healing we can!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss said:

'No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.'

Actually this is completely devoid of logic, as this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Somebody gave you a thank you for that tripe, Jones. That must have been Hollie, as for Hollie the objective facts of rational necessity and academia are irrelevant. Never mind that if what you said were true, the foundation for science would be thusly destroyed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Still cock blocking, I see. Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your “feelings” of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration

Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

You're right. Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans. I know you've called us those things. If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too. All of your insults are true. Theists are worthless, stupid pigs. They are never right. They are wrong about everything. You are the only one who is ever right. Amen. May the force be with you.

If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....

Dear Hollie:
Here is where you are making a leap

You keep defining God = something magic supernatural that you don't believe in

I agree God is not that thing

So why keep starting the proof there

Are you okay with any of these things, which do you agree exists and explains all the forces and events in the world

God = Life, Nature, forces of Nature
God = collective truth, collective universe, sum of all things ever existent, known or unknown
God = Love, energy connecting all people as one humanity, Unconditional Love that naturally exists
God = Good will for all humanity
God = Wisdom (close to God = Truth or God = knowledge as MD equates to God = Creator)

If we agree that God = colelctive body of all knowledge, truth, wisdom
can we start there

And stp before THIS step
A. the leap MD makes by jumping from God = knowledge to God = Creator that has to exist or it runs into contradicitons
B. the leap you make by jumping from God = knowledge to God = some magical supernatural being that can't exist

What is the step BEFORE those conflicting leaps?

God = knowledge or what?

Can you name one thing that determines
what is going on in the world, what is true or false?

Numan said he called the highest default level
"spiritual reality" and another researcher into prayer
called it "the absolute" that even atheists have a concept of but call it different things

What do you call the central or default point of
where truth and knowledge exists? can we start there where we agree
and define and use only terms that mean something consistent to both people?

Geez, someone open a FUCKING WINDOW!!! It's getting hot, hot , hot in here with all this hot air. God is knowledge? Listen, if you don't know, just say so.

Yes, to some people God = Wisdom
this is nothing new!

In fact, a speaker on women and the Bible pointed out
there are MORE references to God as Wisdom or Sophia
as an older archetype for God than references to
God as Heavenly Father which is newer.

the references to God as female Wisdom
OUTNUMBER the references to God as male father
by a ratio of 10 to 1 -- in the Bible alone!

If you add all the books in Buddhism where Wisdom is the ultimate source,
then the writings in Buddhism outnumber those in the Bible by about 11 times.
that's a lot more in favor of God = Wisdom or knowledge than God = personified

There is nothing wrong with using
God = to mean collective body of truth, knowledge and wisdom.

If that is the hot air you are talking about
that is 10 times the amount of popcorn
than the hot air about God as the Father!

 

[Boss]

"Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument.

If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.

We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.

Ahh.. but the spiritual doesn't require creation because 'creation' is a physical concept. It means literally, brought into a physical state of existence. The spiritual doesn't have to be brought into such a state.

The physical exists, it was created... you believe it was created by nothingness out of nothingness for no apparent reason... magic. I believe it was created by spiritual nature which has always existed as spiritual nature.

Ahh, so magical spirit realms have a special exemption because they're magical.

Nope, not an exemption because they are magical, just that spiritual isn't physical. Peyton Manning doesn't get an exemption for not being a Cy Young Award winner, he will never win that award because he's not a baseball player. He probably does know how to play baseball, however.

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.

.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.
LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?

smh

.

If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.

.

Dear percysunshine:
better than a cat, I propose to Hollie and Justin
to prove that Spiritual Healing meets both the teachings in Christianity
and follows natural laws of science and medicine.

So it is both spiritual and natural science.
Documenting the process of how it works
would bridge the gap between religion and science.

Spiritual Healing would satisfy both.

Just like the brain works by both mental process
and physical chemical processes. It is both, not either or.

 

[percysunshine]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.

.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.
LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?

smh

.

If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.

.

Dear percysunshine:
better than a cat, I propose to Hollie and Justin
to prove that Spiritual Healing meets both the teachings in Christianity
and follows natural laws of science and medicine.

So it is both spiritual and natural science.
Documenting the process of how it works
would bridge the gap between religion and science.

Spiritual Healing would satisfy both.

Just like the brain works by both mental process
and physical chemical processes. It is both, not either or.

.

I was in the middle of quantum mechanics philosophy. I will have to change gears and think about this one.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss said:

'No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.'

Actually this is completely devoid of logic, as this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Somebody gave you a thank you for that tripe, Jones. That must have been Hollie, as for Hollie the objective facts of rational necessity and academia are irrelevant. Never mind that if what you said were true, the foundation for science would be thusly destroyed.

Dear M.D. Rawlings and C_Clayton_Jones:

I thanked CCJ for that message because it basically
negated the assumption and mixed up logic about how
"things can't create themselves," etc.

I agree that if you AGREE to symbolize a starting point as God
then that's fine for those people who AGREE to that system.

But for everyone else, if they don't agree to that starting point,
what is wrong with saying "things always existed" and start
with that as the default.

I'm saying the discussion about the universal laws still
can go on within either context, either with God representing
a creating starting point or God equalling all things with no beginning nor end.

The laws WITHIN creation/universe still work the same
and we can discuss and agree on them, regardless if
we ever agree on either God = creator or God = all creation
as the default position. the unviersal laws are so universal
they do not depend on the condition that we agree which
way God means to us, either creator or creation is good enough!

Thanks MD and CCJ

Sorry if it wasn't clear why I was thanking CCJ message.

 

[emilynghiem]

you are the initiator of slander ...

.

^ says BreezeWood who compared me with HITLER? ^

And has not bothered to either qualify, explain or retract that comparison?

????

Question: who is being slandered by comparing the two:
Hitler or Emily?
Maybe we should take a poll...

 

[emilynghiem]

Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.

And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.

"Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?

The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.

The Big Bang did not disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.

“All of the events surrounding that event” are not understood!

It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.

Yeah. What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.

Dear Justin: And this would be cured by providing Hollie the science proof of spiritual healing
she and others need to see who don't get that this is natural and not magical.

Please see previous msg where I challenge you and Hollie to the Bullring.
Can you please tell me whre I need to clarify or correct anything there
before I copy that msg into the Bullring? I am arguing that using science
to demonstrate that spiritual healing is natural effective and consistent with science
will end this argument that theists are pushing supernatural things that can't be proven,
and will lead to agreements with atheists to use science to demonstrate spiritual healing instead of nonscience arguments.

Hollie needs a new brain, that's the healing she's needs. Do you have one handy?

Only as much as the impact of proving Spiritual Healing would change how you look at this also.
Spiritual Change tends to happen in tandem, and affect both sides of a conflict.

it is like the law of conversion, or equal and opposite reactions, Justin.

The deadlock between you and Hollie will change
mutually as much as you open up to see where Hollie is coming from
and she opens up to see where you are coming from.

Right now you both have each other pegged as either "angry Christians refusing to use science"
or "atheists rejecting refusing to use logic" or whatever.

That's why I propose to focus on Spiritual Healing that can be demonstrated by science.
So it satisfied Hollie and other atheists who are wanting to see science prove these things exist.
And it will show that if we use science to explain it to atheists, then there's no more preaching about anything
supernatural they don't get. We prove that it is natural and consistent with science what Christians are teaching.

So it solves the deadlock on both sides, not just changing one side.
Neither side changes their views but remains theist or atheist as before.
What changes is the perception that science and religion clash when they don't;
in reality they can agree and Spiritual Healing can show both are right: the
Christians are right in how the process of forgiveness and healing transforms people
and the atheists are right that if something is true it should be consistent and demonstratable with science.
Both are correct!

 

[Boss]

I'm not attacking you. I agree with you kind of. I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God. That's what you're really saying. Stop saying that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.

I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.

Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.

Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to know truth because we are not omniscient beings. We believe we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.

Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it, just say, "Boss, I don't get it!" No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.

 

[BreezeWood]

you are the initiator of slander ...

.

^ says BreezeWood who compared me with HITLER? ^

And has not bothered to either qualify, explain or retract that comparison?

????

Question: who is being slandered by comparing the two:
Hitler or Emily?
Maybe we should take a poll...

this is what I posted:

"no emilynghiem - I do not agree with you ... your posts remind me of another time and the hearts of others".

.

I simply recognize the history of Christianity,

there, I hope that helps .... I do not promote your cause is all I am saying.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hollie said:

“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”

Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.