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

[M.D. Rawlings]

OH--by the way

This thing we call the "experience"--the observation. Or whatever you may wish to call "receiving new information about our reality" or what I will now lovingly call "the information dump".

It is neither an intuitive or logical process!!

How we go about understanding it begins with intuition(assumptions and guesses based on previous experiences) and logic(how we can form new premises with it) follows behind.

Normally, if there is nonsense conclusions being reach from logical arguments, it is probably due to our intuitive assumptions being wrong.

False. Logic precedes all, philosophical definition follows, then science. It has never been and can never be any other way in terms of order.

Using logic we prove or negate things. Agency. Using science we verify or falsify things. Methodology. Agency precedes and has primacy over methodology. Using logic, from first principles, we determine what is rationally possible and thereby keep scientific inquiry from meandering into scientism, while simultaneously keeping the doors of scientific inquiry wide open with regard to its true objective.

To reverse the necessary order of things, in actuality, to imagine the reversal of the necessary order of things, is to confound the imperatives of logic and to impose arbitrary standards which mislead or blunt our understanding of things. In fact, because the order of things is inescapable, the imaginary reversal of the natural and necessary order of things is the imposition of a logical contradiction, followed by the philosophical construct of materialism, which is not scientifically demonstrable, followed by a scientific model yielding verifications and falsifications that cannot be trusted.

This is what materialistic atheism is doing to science.

Fortunately, the more mathematically exacting physical sciences are less vulnerable to this bastardization, though not all of them, but we are getting a lot of junk science from the life and social sciences, especially, as a result. We are also getting more and more junk from the physical sciences of ecology and meteorology.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.

For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.

If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.

Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.

Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.

And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.

You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.

I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.

As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point. Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.

My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal. I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level. It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.

"Dad, I can't do it anymore."

"But, son, it follows!"

"Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​

I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term universal, where I should just stick with the term objective. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding #4, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do not beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.

As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link. He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced" than Einstein's apparently.

Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse

"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."

I disagree! And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known about God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally knowing or experiencing God. Right?

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

The primary psychological role of traditional religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

Very good, Sealybobo.
And this applies also to people in denial on BOTH sides.

The logical NEUTRAL position is that God represents something
that can neither be proven nor disproven by empirical science.

So either accepting God on faith or rejecting God on faith
shows a bias toward something not empirical proven but could still be fallable, false or change
but we are CERTAIN it is or isn't.

People believe what they are meant to believe at the time.

Junk science.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.

I think our ability to understand things is equal, but our perception of understanding differs. We have different perceptions because we have different perspectives. Our ability to rationalize or be objective stems from our perceptions. We don't all see the glass half full, some see it half empty, and some may not even see the glass at all, while still others may see a totally full glass.

We hinge our faith in what we believe on words like objective, reasoned, logical, axiomatic, because these help bolster our faith in what we believe as truth. At the most elementary level, everything we claim to know as truth requires faith. Ironically, this may be the greatest proof for God.

So you're putting empirical perceptions ahead of rational apprehensions?

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...

So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.

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.

W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out

A Faith healing which is fraudulent/false
is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.

MAJOR point (like not comparing geocentric beliefs with heliocentric
and saying "all that science is the same")

The effective healing is based on the effects of forgiveness,
so there is a deep spiritual change that happens to invoke a change in body, mind or relationships.

False faith healing can SKIP the step of deep forgiveness
and just declares things verbally so it fails.

Like the difference between SAYING you fixed a car,
and magically expecting it to suddenly run right,
and DOING the diagnosis to troubleshoot and find the problem
and fixing it to make the car work.

You cant just say "all automechanics are frauds"
Though the majority of them or their reputations are fraudulent.

You ahve to go to the good mechanics with reliable reputations
to get your car fixed, and don't judge them in the same category as frauds.

B. Also the DARK spiritual energies are in CONFLICT and OPPOSITE
of the Positive life-giving forces

These are NOT the same

This is dangerous like saying alcohol and water are the same
because they are both clear liquids.

Excuse me, but I would not even confuse the different types
of alcohol with each other, much less confuse with water!

Hollie, the tarot cards, ouija boards, things that deal with
sorcery, spiritism, witchcraft, spells, curses, occult, voodoo, black magic, etc.

are NEGATIVE energy

and not the same as
Natural lifegiving energy that your mind/body use to heal itself.

Sorry Hollie I have to stop you because this is
DANGEROUS to say they are the same

I have friends who lost people to very sick situations
who played with these forces. They are not to be taken lightly.

I believe science should be used to show the difference between
dark and light energy
just like proving radioactive energy and materials are dangerous
and not to be exposed to them.

This is not all the same and mixing the energies
can cause all kinds of damage and destruction.

This needs to be studied and estblished by science
as part of the reason I push for spiritual healing to be studied.

the same research on spiritual healing which is natural. healthy and harmless
would reveal how
fraudulent and HARMFUL forms of spiritual manipulation are dangerous.

We'd solve both problems at once with the same research!

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.

I think our ability to understand things is equal, but our perception of understanding differs. We have different perceptions because we have different perspectives. Our ability to rationalize or be objective stems from our perceptions. We don't all see the glass half full, some see it half empty, and some may not even see the glass at all, while still others may see a totally full glass.

We hinge our faith in what we believe on words like objective, reasoned, logical, axiomatic, because these help bolster our faith in what we believe as truth. At the most elementary level, everything we claim to know as truth requires faith. Ironically, this may be the greatest proof for God.

So you're putting empirical perceptions ahead of rational apprehensions?

No I'm saying you can have all three:
proving it is consistent with mind, body and spirit.

O ye of little faith!

 

[emilynghiem]

Junk science.

Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.

 

[Hollie]

OH--by the way

This thing we call the "experience"--the observation. Or whatever you may wish to call "receiving new information about our reality" or what I will now lovingly call "the information dump".

It is neither an intuitive or logical process!!

How we go about understanding it begins with intuition(assumptions and guesses based on previous experiences) and logic(how we can form new premises with it) follows behind.

Normally, if there is nonsense conclusions being reach from logical arguments, it is probably due to our intuitive assumptions being wrong.

False. Logic precedes all, philosophical definition follows, then science. It has never been and can never be any other way in terms of order.

Using logic we prove or negate things. Agency. Using science we verify or falsify things. Methodology. Agency precedes and has primacy over methodology. Using logic, from first principles, we determine what is rationally possible and thereby keep scientific inquiry from meandering into scientism, while simultaneously keeping the doors of scientific inquiry wide open with regard to its true objective.

To reverse the necessary order of things, in actuality, to imagine the reversal of the necessary order of things, is to confound the imperatives of logic and to impose arbitrary standards which mislead or blunt our understanding of things. In fact, because the order of things is inescapable, the imaginary reversal of the natural and necessary order of things is the imposition of a logical contradiction, followed by the philosophical construct of materialism, which is not scientifically demonstrable, followed by a scientific model yielding verifications and falsifications that cannot be trusted.

This is what materialistic atheism is doing to science.

Fortunately, the more mathematically exacting physical sciences are less vulnerable to this bastardization, though not all of them, but we are getting a lot of junk science from the life and social sciences, especially, as a result. We are also getting more and more junk from the physical sciences of ecology and meteorology.

Was anyone else getting a chuckle over that confused, disjointed, rambling screed?

 

[emilynghiem]

How life evolved is explained by natural processes.

'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe, and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.

If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.

Dear GT the same way that dreams are experienced on some other level,
the visions that people see of God or demons or angles are on some other level.

PratchettFan mentioned he had a spiritual vision or experience where he saw a huge
frog the size of a small dog appear during a meditation.

so what level of perception did that appear?
It certainly wasn't real because frogs are not that size.

But he saw it and experienced it, so it was real on that level.

What Peck said in his book was that 95% of what he witnessed
with demonic voices/personalities that spoke to him and then were removed by the deliverance process
could be explained away using science. But 5% that he felt,
without a doubt in his own mind, cme from some spiritual reality outside the patient's minds
becuse he experienced it with them and his team and they all verified seeing the
snakelike contortions and weird visions that are not normal to this world.

How do you document that?
Peck said there was one video that caught a profile of the patient making
the demonic snakelike faces that were not normal or human but like hallucinating them,
except the whole team saw it, not just him.

My friend Olivia who does exorcisms says the snakelike thrashing and faces
(and head turning) has happened and she could see it but could not explain it scientifically
because the head cannot turn around lik e that physically. So it has to be on the
spiritual plane, similar to dreams we see but these happen during waking sober states,
not while on drugs.

I don't know if we can use digital or analog technology sensitive enough to
capture the actual visions or voices, but the dream states can be measured in the brain.

so it is possible to show WHEN a patient has demonic states,
and WHEN these go into remission or completely quit manifesting,
or the patient demonstrates ability to choose NOT to let them manifest
when they couldn't control them while they were sick.

So even if we cannot prove the spiritual part, we can demonstrate
the manifestation as brain responses or psychological patterns of behavior
and improvement/recovery int he patient, similar to drug or abuse recovery
when theh patient reports having fewer or no more panic attacks they can't control.

 

[emilynghiem]

OH--by the way

This thing we call the "experience"--the observation. Or whatever you may wish to call "receiving new information about our reality" or what I will now lovingly call "the information dump".

It is neither an intuitive or logical process!!

How we go about understanding it begins with intuition(assumptions and guesses based on previous experiences) and logic(how we can form new premises with it) follows behind.

Normally, if there is nonsense conclusions being reach from logical arguments, it is probably due to our intuitive assumptions being wrong.

False. Logic precedes all, philosophical definition follows, then science. It has never been and can never be any other way in terms of order.

Using logic we prove or negate things. Agency. Using science we verify or falsify things. Methodology. Agency precedes and has primacy over methodology. Using logic, from first principles, we determine what is rationally possible and thereby keep scientific inquiry from meandering into scientism, while simultaneously keeping the doors of scientific inquiry wide open with regard to its true objective.

To reverse the necessary order of things, in actuality, to imagine the reversal of the necessary order of things, is to confound the imperatives of logic and to impose arbitrary standards which mislead or blunt our understanding of things. In fact, because the order of things is inescapable, the imaginary reversal of the natural and necessary order of things is the imposition of a logical contradiction, followed by the philosophical construct of materialism, which is not scientifically demonstrable, followed by a scientific model yielding verifications and falsifications that cannot be trusted.

This is what materialistic atheism is doing to science.

Fortunately, the more mathematically exacting physical sciences are less vulnerable to this bastardization, though not all of them, but we are getting a lot of junk science from the life and social sciences, especially, as a result. We are also getting more and more junk from the physical sciences of ecology and meteorology.

Was anyone else getting a chuckle over that confused, disjointed, rambling screed?

Not to worry Hollie.

When spiritual healing is proven, there won't be such a need to argue in "syllogistical circles."
The people who need to work things out with MD on that level will have an easier time anyway.

Everyone else will be too busy applying forgiveness and healing to change themselves
and their relations with others and won't have time to argue about terms, but will be too busy applying the concepts!

Too bad if you reject science proving spiritual healing the way MD nixed the idea.

Hollie if you pursued it, and MD was the one rejecting it,
you'd have the tables turned and corner him with his own scoffing at skeptics!

If MD is smart he will open up his proof to include
science as a valid way to VERIFY the spiritual healing
process that ALLOWS people to reconcile on the TAG part of the proof.

I give MD credit though. For him to pursue this part without the benefit
of knowing spiritual healing can be verified by science, shows he has strong conviction which is admirable.

 

[BreezeWood]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Spiritual Healing process that requires Faith in Forgiveness
(ie agreeing to pray for forgiveness first, and then receiving healing afterwards)
can be demonstrated as effective, natural, valid and consistent with science and medicine.

So you can prove both that this process is real and works following the same pattern or process
for all people though the results vary because people's ill conditions vary in complexity and length to recover and heal,
AND you can prove it is valid what Christians teach
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick.

So this can be demonstrated using medical science.

Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...

Yes, this can be demonstrated to work naturally and follow a process
consistent with science and medicine.

You can read up on it, I'll send you the book by Scott Peck
"Glimpses of the Devil" where he scoffed, too, and was convinced
he coudl prove it was all delusional.

he changed his mind by the second interview, went through
the deliverance process with two schizophrenic patients,
noted the stages and changes they went through,
and it took 10 years to write this out in books he published on it.

So the next step is to replicate this in formal medical
studies so it can be established like any other treatment.

In Great Britain, some steps were being taken to validate
deliverance therapy as a valid form of treatment by the health authority.

In America, most people who practice it do it freely through the
independent groups. So they can already access it.

To establish it as a choice for all people to access,
that is why I want to prove it medically to remove the
stigma and rejection of "church and state' and fear of religion attached.

It's a natural process based on forgiving all levels of conflict
or unresolved issues that the negative mindsets and energies are attached to.

In Buddhism they do regression therapy which is similar -- it identifies
unresolved issues in the past to be forgiven, let go and healed.

The one person I met who had a phobia healed this way
wen through a therapist who used both Buddhist regression meditation
and Christian prayer to cast out or remove the addicted fear, and
so the person could be freed of the phobia tied to spiritual past generations
she was connected with. So this is still a form of generational therapy.

You can call that sin or karma or demons passed down,
but it means negative conditioning in the spirit that
manifests in the mind, body or relations until it is rooted out and healed.

YES this can be shown to be healed through therapy.
Both the past life therapies and the generational healing
follow similar patterns and process of helping people heal
and restore their natural minds and health.

 

[sealybobo]

I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.

Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.

The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.

I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.

Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!

If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave. All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.

What is truth in such a situation? What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.

Understand, it is not just logic that fails here. Your intuition will fail as well!!

I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!

It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.

It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.

Correct. The logic of quantum physics is rock solid. But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science.

It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and they never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.

Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would not be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.

This is axiomatic.

The logic on quantum physics might be rock solid but 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.

You're repeating yourself.

Whether you understand why it's true or not, I have falsified the notion that any of the classical proofs, as properly premised on the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, breakdown in any actual sense at all.

All you're doing, once again, is falsely implying what is now for you and others, who have been around from the beginning, the inexcusable ignorance of confounding the metaphysical facts of logic and science with regard to the distinction between proofs/negations and verifications/falsifications, respectively.

Enough of this superstitious gibberish of QW-Foxfyre and Company, especially after this last round of dogmatic fanaticism. This tripe has been roundly refuted. It is not true and cannot be true! Indeed, it is absurd for a theist to argue the Cosmological sans this understanding.

None of you have overturned the fact of this formal and necessary distinction; none of you have done anything at all in this regard but made false and irresponsible allegations. And this garbage about my posts being inordinately technical or verbose as if the motive were to impress is utter bullshit! The reason that QW-Foxfyre and Company's thinking is so far off is because they fail to be exacting in their expressions and terms in their minds before they put them to this thread.

Newsflash: the persons who need to be cut off are those who go on spouting this gibberish. It is they who any sensible person would no longer give ear to.

No coincidence that of all the dumb humans on earth, 95% of them believe in god but then of all the scientists only 50% of them believe. And the other 50% would admit they don't know, they believe.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

So we don't exist?

 

[sealybobo]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

If his arguments were sound they'd teach it in school. Fact is his arguments are the same flawed arguments our ancient ancestors made when they were about 2 steps out of the cave.

 

[sealybobo]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

So we don't exist?

We do, gods don't.

 

[emilynghiem]

I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.

Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!

If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave. All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.

What is truth in such a situation? What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.

Understand, it is not just logic that fails here. Your intuition will fail as well!!

I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!

It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.

It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.

Correct. The logic of quantum physics is rock solid. But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science.

It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and they never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.

Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would not be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.

This is axiomatic.

The logic on quantum physics might be rock solid but 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.

You're repeating yourself.

Whether you understand why it's true or not, I have falsified the notion that any of the classical proofs, as properly premised on the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, breakdown in any actual sense at all.

All you're doing, once again, is falsely implying what is now for you and others, who have been around from the beginning, the inexcusable ignorance of confounding the metaphysical facts of logic and science with regard to the distinction between proofs/negations and verifications/falsifications, respectively.

Enough of this superstitious gibberish of QW-Foxfyre and Company, especially after this last round of dogmatic fanaticism. This tripe has been roundly refuted. It is not true and cannot be true! Indeed, it is absurd for a theist to argue the Cosmological sans this understanding.

None of you have overturned the fact of this formal and necessary distinction; none of you have done anything at all in this regard but made false and irresponsible allegations. And this garbage about my posts being inordinately technical or verbose as if the motive were to impress is utter bullshit! The reason that QW-Foxfyre and Company's thinking is so far off is because they fail to be exacting in their expressions and terms in their minds before they put them to this thread.

Newsflash: the persons who need to be cut off are those who go on spouting this gibberish. It is they who any sensible person would no longer give ear to.

No coincidence that of all the dumb humans on earth, 95% of them believe in god but then of all the scientists only 50% of them believe. And the other 50% would admit they don't know, they believe.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

Hi Sealybobo:
1. What about the percentage of people who have gone to war?
Versus the people who are like the Dalai Lama?
Does that mean we should all keep making war since more peopel do that
than people who win the Nobel Prize for Peace like the Dalai Lama?

Since the Dalai Lama and Nobel Laureates who believe in peace
are "fewer" that makes them "stupid" for believing in peace?

2. What % of the population believe or understand Einstein's theories?
What % don't give a rat's ass what Einstein, Mozart or Jefferson contributed
because it doesn't apply to them directly?

Sealybobo are you REALLY going to go with the majority
just because that's more common?

How many people are as smart as you are Sealybobo.
What % is that?

Would you trade how smart you are for whatever 50-90% of the population thinks like?
Just because that is a greater %?

Really?

This doesn't sound like the consistent reason I think you are driven by, SB.
Are you sure you really mean what you sound like you are saying?
Please tell me you were mouthing off and don't really expect to go by percentages.

The majority of population in Texas doesn't score as high on their academic exams
as the minority I'd rather have going through medical school and engineering
to practice medicine and design structures and machines.

Please tell me you don't expect to call the minority part of the population
"stupid" compared to the majority based on % of the population alone. Really?

 

[Boss]

No coincidence that of all the dumb humans on earth, 95% of them believe in god but then of all the scientists only 50% of them believe. And the other 50% would admit they don't know, they believe.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

total nonsense.

 

[emilynghiem]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

So we don't exist?

We do, gods don't.

Hi Sealybobo depends how you define god Gods or God

Are you okay with
God = Wisdom
does Wisdom exist?
God = Love
does Love exist?
God = Life
does Life exist?
God = Collective Truth or knowledge
does Collective Truth exist?

Sealybobo which makes less sense to you
1. someone who keeps believing and pushing god or gods that don't exist
2. someone like you who DOESN'T believe in them
but keeps insisting that's what god or gods Mean and
KEEP pushing that = something that doesn't exist!

Compared with the corrective approach that makes sense to me and I recommend:
A. QUIT pushing definitions of god that conflict or don't exist
B. FOCUS on definitions or meanings associated with God that
people DO AGREE exist and are HELPFUL to use to get something positive done!

Now which makes more sense or gets more accomplished:
you and others arguing about 1 and 2
or
people making peace by quitting A and focusing on B where we AGREE
to focus on things God means that we agree are helpful, practical and beneficial to all

Which makes more sense?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Junk science.

Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.

When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.

Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside the positive proof of His existence in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

 

[emilynghiem]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

Dear BreezeWood and M.D. Rawlings:
One point I got out of what BW is saying above,
loosely, that the knowledge or understanding of "life beyond"
can be part of someone's "understanding of God"
and not be included or addressed in your proof.

What my approach hopes to do is to
take what cannot be proven, and still find the
best way to express it that is agreeable to both
sides as valid and not needing proof, so no need to argue.

For example
1. proving people carry karma connected to past lives of
other people is interpreted and taken on faith
2. some people interpret these memories of past generations
as "demon spirits" who do have access to this knowledge
influencing or making people think or feel things connected to that other time, event or person

a. So using your way you don't address this at all as having anytihng to do with God
b. using science people can argue about how to interpret the information
and some may or may not believe that person is really connected to memories from the past
c. however the way i recommend
does NOT requiring proving reincarnation of karma one way or another

it says let BOTH people interpret it THEIR WAY
1. one person calls it the karma reincarnating int hat person
2. the other person calls it demons and negative spirits

I say that's close enough,
bad karma that isn't forgiven and healed can repeat and cause
phobic or adverse reactions in people in the future
and this is what demons do also, it's both NEGATIVE ENERGY

BOTH are healed by Forgiveness and
generational healing by a combination of either Buddhist
mediation and letting go or Christian prayer for forgiving past generational issues passed down

So I am saying it is STILL the SAME spiritual process

Do you see how the approaches using
a, b, and c
are different and some will lead to more conflicts
but c will ask to resolve conflicts by NOT changing people's views
merely ALIGNING them

faith in God is like that.

People like BreezeWood may express what God means to them
and it may not fit your proof outline but cause arguments.

that doesn't mean someone doesn't believe in God
just because we fail to ALIGN the understanding we DO have of God

BW believes in some manifestation of God
but claims up and down it is not the same as yours or mine or the Christian God

So what can we do to ALIGN so we ARE talking about the one and only God that is source of
all these representations and manifestations, even if they are flawed or seem conflicted.

HOw do we show we MEAN the same God?