Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Number 4 could apply to any and all of the asserted gods. The christian cabal will necessarily default to god, collectively as the christian gods, but there's no reason to do that except to manufacture an argument that presupposes its conclusions.Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.
But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.
(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.
And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.
Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.
Is that it?
I have no idea what you're talking about. The Seven Things are the only thing I'm talking about. The parenthetical is an aside.
Ok then.
1. We exist! So what?
2. The cosmological order exists! So what?
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! So do Leprechauns.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness! IF?
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! So what? And you can't verify he does. Seems to us it's all in your heads.
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)! Why not?
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
Why is this true?
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
The idea of god existing in our minds =\= the idea of god is "biologically hardwired in our minds."Read them as first presented. The first five.
Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
See absolutely no differences?
Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
to now......
God is "biomechanically hardwired."
And that's ME changing my views?
My views have remained steadfast.
I believe that we exist.
I believe the cosmos exist.
Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
Hence:
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!
Simple.
No God can't be "ruled out". The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists. If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
None of this proves anything. NEXT!
Yes, of course, because if God exists is objective. We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God. If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. . . .
Simple.
Simple for a simpleton.Read them as first presented. The first five.
Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
See absolutely no differences?
Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
to now......
God is "biomechanically hardwired."
And that's ME changing my views?
My views have remained steadfast.
I believe that we exist.
I believe the cosmos exist.
Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
Hence:
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!
Simple.
No God can't be "ruled out". The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists. If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
None of this proves anything. NEXT!
Yes, of course, because if God exists is objective. We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God. If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. . . .
Simple.
Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
Random question just out of pocket....
Have you ever practiced dreaming?
I'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
Random question just out of pocket....
Have you ever practiced dreaming?
Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
Read them as first presented. The first five.
Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
See absolutely no differences?
Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
to now......
God is "biomechanically hardwired."
And that's ME changing my views?
My views have remained steadfast.
I believe that we exist.
I believe the cosmos exist.
Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
Hence:
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!
Simple.
No God can't be "ruled out". The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists. If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
None of this proves anything. NEXT!
Yes, of course, because if God exists is objective. We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God. If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. . . .
Simple.
I'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
Random question just out of pocket....
Have you ever practiced dreaming?
Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
But lucid dreaming is this whole other ball park. Starting with a dream journal is a good idea. The trick is, recognizing patterns so much so that they become subconsciously imbedded. Dream journals can work. But other things work better like 'reality checks' where all day long for a period of about two weeks.....you perform a task such as flipping a light switch a few times. Eventually, it will come up in a dream just because of the memory. Well, when it comes up - something will occur in the dream like the light won't go on.
When and if you can realize you're dreaming, without waking up.....you begin to be conscious within a dream.
Not semi conscious, like can happen sometimes by accident where you are somewhat in control.
But FULLY awake but in a dream.
This takes TONS of time to research and master, and it takes discipline to take steps day and night in practicing for the ultimate.
I'm not fully there yet, either.
But the people in the circles of youtubes, etc. That have taught/brought me to this point speak of all kinds of weird spiritual shit. Meeting other versions of themselves.....all kinds of intrigue.
Whenever I get really close, I get sleep paralysis and drop out. I need more practice, but life is busy and I can't always 'care' to take all the steps.
Yes I haveI'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
Random question just out of pocket....
Have you ever practiced dreaming?
Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
But lucid dreaming is this whole other ball park. Starting with a dream journal is a good idea. The trick is, recognizing patterns so much so that they become subconsciously imbedded. Dream journals can work. But other things work better like 'reality checks' where all day long for a period of about two weeks.....you perform a task such as flipping a light switch a few times. Eventually, it will come up in a dream just because of the memory. Well, when it comes up - something will occur in the dream like the light won't go on.
When and if you can realize you're dreaming, without waking up.....you begin to be conscious within a dream.
Not semi conscious, like can happen sometimes by accident where you are somewhat in control.
But FULLY awake but in a dream.
This takes TONS of time to research and master, and it takes discipline to take steps day and night in practicing for the ultimate.
I'm not fully there yet, either.
But the people in the circles of youtubes, etc. That have taught/brought me to this point speak of all kinds of weird spiritual shit. Meeting other versions of themselves.....all kinds of intrigue.
Whenever I get really close, I get sleep paralysis and drop out. I need more practice, but life is busy and I can't always 'care' to take all the steps.
Ever see a dog dream it's running? So cute.
Read them as first presented. The first five.
Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
See absolutely no differences?
Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
to now......
God is "biomechanically hardwired."
And that's ME changing my views?
My views have remained steadfast.
I believe that we exist.
I believe the cosmos exist.
Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
Hence:
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!
Simple.
No God can't be "ruled out". The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists. If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
None of this proves anything. NEXT!
Yes, of course, because if God exists is objective. We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God. If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. . . .
Simple.
I'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
Random question just out of pocket....
Have you ever practiced dreaming?
Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
But lucid dreaming is this whole other ball park. Starting with a dream journal is a good idea. The trick is, recognizing patterns so much so that they become subconsciously imbedded. Dream journals can work. But other things work better like 'reality checks' where all day long for a period of about two weeks.....you perform a task such as flipping a light switch a few times. Eventually, it will come up in a dream just because of the memory. Well, when it comes up - something will occur in the dream like the light won't go on.
When and if you can realize you're dreaming, without waking up.....you begin to be conscious within a dream.
Not semi conscious, like can happen sometimes by accident where you are somewhat in control.
But FULLY awake but in a dream.
This takes TONS of time to research and master, and it takes discipline to take steps day and night in practicing for the ultimate.
I'm not fully there yet, either.
But the people in the circles of youtubes, etc. That have taught/brought me to this point speak of all kinds of weird spiritual shit. Meeting other versions of themselves.....all kinds of intrigue.
Whenever I get really close, I get sleep paralysis and drop out. I need more practice, but life is busy and I can't always 'care' to take all the steps.
It could, and thats what I was getting at.I'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
Random question just out of pocket....
Have you ever practiced dreaming?
Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
But lucid dreaming is this whole other ball park. Starting with a dream journal is a good idea. The trick is, recognizing patterns so much so that they become subconsciously imbedded. Dream journals can work. But other things work better like 'reality checks' where all day long for a period of about two weeks.....you perform a task such as flipping a light switch a few times. Eventually, it will come up in a dream just because of the memory. Well, when it comes up - something will occur in the dream like the light won't go on.
When and if you can realize you're dreaming, without waking up.....you begin to be conscious within a dream.
Not semi conscious, like can happen sometimes by accident where you are somewhat in control.
But FULLY awake but in a dream.
This takes TONS of time to research and master, and it takes discipline to take steps day and night in practicing for the ultimate.
I'm not fully there yet, either.
But the people in the circles of youtubes, etc. That have taught/brought me to this point speak of all kinds of weird spiritual shit. Meeting other versions of themselves.....all kinds of intrigue.
Whenever I get really close, I get sleep paralysis and drop out. I need more practice, but life is busy and I can't always 'care' to take all the steps.
I think I know what you mean. I have been in a dream before and was aware it was a dream. I usually end up "showing off" in the dream... Like this one time, I showed my friends in the dream how I could defy gravity. I was running, taking these really long strides which turned into marathon strides that never ended. My friends were amazed by it. I could stay suspended as long as I liked.
Seriously, and back on topic.. I think our dreams have some correlation with our spiritual awareness. Not sure to what degree or how that works, but I believe there is a connection.
The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.
But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.
(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
Here are my 7
1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
Random question just out of pocket....
Have you ever practiced dreaming?
Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
Read them as first presented. The first five.
Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
See absolutely no differences?
Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
to now......
God is "biomechanically hardwired."
And that's ME changing my views?
My views have remained steadfast.
I believe that we exist.
I believe the cosmos exist.
Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
Hence:
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!
Simple.
No God can't be "ruled out". The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists. If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
None of this proves anything. NEXT!
Yes, of course, because if God exists is objective. We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God. If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. . . .
Simple.
Yes you are simple. I however am not. I don't assume anything. It is you who is assuming a whole hell of a lot.
For example, I read those 7 things you posted and in no way does that make me think, "oh yea then there must be a god", but to a simpleton like you it is all the logic you need.
Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
Do you understand this? That means even your arguments have fatal flaws or more likely explanations.
Read them as first presented. The first five.
Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
See absolutely no differences?
Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
to now......
God is "biomechanically hardwired."
And that's ME changing my views?
My views have remained steadfast.
I believe that we exist.
I believe the cosmos exist.
Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
Hence:
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!
Simple.
No God can't be "ruled out". The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists. If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
None of this proves anything. NEXT!
Yes, of course, because if God exists is objective. We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God. If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. . . .
Simple.
Yes you are simple. I however am not. I don't assume anything. It is you who is assuming a whole hell of a lot.
For example, I read those 7 things you posted and in no way does that make me think, "oh yea then there must be a god", but to a simpleton like you it is all the logic you need.
Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
Do you understand this? That means even your arguments have fatal flaws or more likely explanations.
I don't assume God's existence from these things. I know these things are objectively true, as do you, and it's not logically possible to say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist without, in actuality, logically, saying/thinking that he does exist. Period. That's it. There are no flaws in any that. Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the mattes of existence and origin. There's nothing assumed.
THE SEVEN THINGS ARE NOT A PROOF! THEY'RE A STATEMENT OF COGNITIVE FACTS THAT INCLUDES A PROOF REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE TO SAY GOD DOESN'T EXIST WITHOUT ACTUALLY SAYING THAT HE DOES EXIST.
THAT'S IT. THERE IS NO MORE.
I see how that works. That was a disaster of convolution, predefinition of terms, bad analogies, false comparisons and the worst example of the dangers of religious extremism.The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.
But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.
(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
Here are my 7
1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
Your #2 is of course false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5: Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence. Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
See how that works?
Yes. Zeus is everywhere.Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
Hence:
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!
Simple.
No God can't be "ruled out". The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists. If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
None of this proves anything. NEXT!
Yes, of course, because if God exists is objective. We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God. If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. . . .
Simple.
Yes you are simple. I however am not. I don't assume anything. It is you who is assuming a whole hell of a lot.
For example, I read those 7 things you posted and in no way does that make me think, "oh yea then there must be a god", but to a simpleton like you it is all the logic you need.
Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
Do you understand this? That means even your arguments have fatal flaws or more likely explanations.
I don't assume God's existence from these things. I know these things are objectively true, as do you, and it's not logically possible to say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist without, in actuality, logically, saying/thinking that he does exist. Period. That's it. There are no flaws in any that. Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the mattes of existence and origin. There's nothing assumed.
THE SEVEN THINGS ARE NOT A PROOF! THEY'RE A STATEMENT OF COGNITIVE FACTS THAT INCLUDES A PROOF REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE TO SAY GOD DOESN'T EXIST WITHOUT ACTUALLY SAYING THAT HE DOES EXIST.
THAT'S IT. THERE IS NO MORE.
What's really weird about all this is the beliefs of folks who seem to think God is someone far away or mysteriously aloof when He's all around us and in everything. I see God everywhere, in our minds and in our logic and math, in physics. He's talking to us in everything there is. It's so obvious. God's thoughts are everywhere and in everything. Why are people having such a difficult time with all this, even theists imagine Him to be some kind of secretive being who is nothing more to them than their subjective experience. As for the atheists, I'm convinced now that they're the most superstitious people on the planet. It's just seven simple, obvious truths that no one escapes because A = A, the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle. Do these things tell you anything about God at all? Yes, lots if you think about them. But on the face of them, they're just seven simple logical truths, objectively true and self-evident to everybody, and Fox freaks me out more than anybody. You can tell she hasn't really read or thought about any of the things that matter. She sure likes that cosmological argument though.
That's remarkable. You exempt yourself from any pwoof of your baseless claims. How cool is that? You grant yourself an exclusive right to make any pointless, baseless you wushu and you're not under any obligation to support your claims with fact or evidence.The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.
But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.
(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
Here are my 7
1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
Your #2 is of course false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5: Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence. Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
See how that works?
You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.
There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.
