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

[sealybobo]

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?

What makes more sense? Someone who says there is no god and pushes for a more intelligent society that isn't kept stupid by a stupid concept. I don't think god is good for people. Look at Isis in Iraq. That's god honey.

And I already told you you can't say "God is Wisdom or love". Point number 17:

1. God is the universe/love/laws of physics.
   We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
   
   “To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
   
   
   
   

 

[Boss]

Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.

You might want to start praying.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Do you really believe that we are "meant for something"? So you believe in fate? So my cousin who died of a heart attack in his car in his early 50's shouldn't have wasted his time dieting and exercising because that heart attack was already pre written?

What if I went to church tomorrow and got inspired to become more like you? So I am ok being a former theist because that's the way god designed me?

 

[emilynghiem]

One formulation of the Atheist's Wager suggests that one should live a good life without religion, since Martin writes that a loving and kind god would reward good deeds, and if no gods exist, a good person will leave behind a positive legacy. The second formulation suggests that, instead of rewarding belief as in Pascal's wager, a god may reward disbelief, in which case one would risk losing infinite happiness by believing in a god unjustly, rather than disbelieving justly.

1. First of all why can't you both BELIEVE in higher good AND do higher good in this lifetime?
Why can't you do both, and leave it Unconditional either way.

it is just as "conditioned or selfish" to do "good" as a condition that God exists
or as a condition that God does not exist. Why not do good for the sake of God which is the meaning
of God = unconditional love. Love for lovesake is the whole point anyway, either way!

2. Secondly "God rewarding" is synonymous/consistent
with cause and effect, or good intention/actions leading to good results.

The issue is to have good intent to begin with.
Good will begets good will.
Ill will begets ill will.

This does not require faith in a personified God to understand.
This is natural law which God represents, regardless if someone uses that symbolism or not.

it is STILL true that
Forgiveness ==> allows h ealing and correction to improve, build and destroy relations
Unforgivness/ill will ==> blocks and destroys

3. Sealybobo as long as you believe in general
that good intent tends toward good actions and results
and bad intent tends toward bad things going wrong,
that is basically the same law of good influence vs. bad influence.

When you get to more advanced levels, instead of
labeling things "good or bad" you learn how Forgiveness
corrects things that were even bad.

How we ALLOW the good to overcome and replace the bad
is why it is important to understand the spiritual process.

It does not matter if we describe this using a personified God
or we just talk about how the process works anyway.

God is not about imposing a condition; that's the religion
part that the Protestant movement challenged with the Reformation.

The point was salvation from hell/suffering
was based on faith in forgiving the past so we can receive.

It is NOT about "dictating some magic words or ritual" to be saved.
That would be a condition and God's grace would not be free.

The only step is agreeing to give permission
and that is why we have to CHOOSE to forgive
and CHOOSE to get go of problems before receiving a solution.

The key is really Forgiveness, and then all else follows
once we understand we change things by forigving and letting go.

4. Yes BTW I do believe in general the script in life is
written to get to a happy ending. I can't know all the ups and downs
because I'm supposed to learn from those like everyone else.
But in general things are heading toward truth peace and justice for all people
as one spiritual family. And all the conversations we have are helping prepare
us by resolving issues from the past so we can build better relations and society
for future generations that will finish teh work we don't complete in our lifetimes.
We do the most we can with what we have in life and inherit some things
from previous generations and leave some things to future generations.
But the general learning curve is to break free from negative patterns, learn from past mistakes
isntead of repeating them, and start investing in positive solutions, process and patterns that work better in the present and are more sustainable for the future.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Do you really believe that we are "meant for something"? So you believe in fate? So my cousin who died of a heart attack in his car in his early 50's shouldn't have wasted his time dieting and exercising because that heart attack was already pre written?

What if I went to church tomorrow and got inspired to become more like you? So I am ok being a former theist because that's the way god designed me?

1. It's not that he "wasted his time" it's that we should do the right thing for its own sake
and not have our happiness "dependent" on getting a certain outcome we aren't guaranteed.
Something can always go wrong, and it helps to reduce stress by being okay with that.
If you are constant uptight from micromanaging to the point it's not natural for you,
that's not enjoying life anyway. The key is finding a BALANCE: yes, we have to do
what is right and healthy, if we want things to go effectively and sustainably. We have to be reasonable wise and practical.
But we can't go to such an extreme it becomes unlivable;
like refusing to leave the house because it lowers our risk of a car accident.
We can try to make things fun, and get satisfaction from doing things well.

Why frame everything as either or?
Why not find a way to enjoy doing things rights for their own value and
not focus on "conditions" being met as the only value.
We can enjoy both the journey and destination, not compromise one for the other.

2. Sealybobo i don't think you or I or anyone can become something that isn't natural for us.
We can learn to add more skills or understanding, but we will always be ourselves.

Going to church does not change you into something else;
like going to a science lab and learning how physics works does not convert you into a rocket scientist engineer.

If that is someone's specialty, let other people focus on that.

The main thing is to have a fuller understanding of all sides of something,
knowing the good points and also knowing the weak spots,
just like the best way or worst way to use a tool in the tool box or an instrument in the orchestra.

We need to learn enough to work with each other,
but no, we don't expect to convert people from one thing to another.

As the Bahai teach it, you add knowledge and wisdom from each different source.
Like learning multiple languages, wha tis wrong with learning what different
religious systems teach, the terms they use, and where these align with others?

What is missing from one approach may find balance in another, so we need all of these
together to cover all the bases.

SB my atheist friends pretty much stay nontheist
and my Christian friends stay theist. You may open
up to understand more about the opposite view,
but that does not require converting, Most people keep their native
language and just add other languages in addition not in place of!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them. Why did they start lying? Maybe your arguments don't hold water? Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth. Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?

Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this. Ok maybe something did. Why does that something have to be a god? And why the lies? Why lie and say god visited your ancestors? I know! It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven. That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking. Grow up. And point number two is wrong:

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Bull! I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread! The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man. Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument. Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?

Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men? Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that? Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.

Because you are one big straw man that's why.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“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

And you go right on with that pagan tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy. Neither you nor Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma. In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.

How did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you? Not so well, did they? No one escapes "The Seven Things."

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!

Actually Dawkins and anti theist science is something new. For years we weren't allowed to talk. Remember? Hence why religion is "hard wired" into us. AKA Brainwashed over the centuries.

And science has come a long way in the last 40 years so our arguments are new. And every time we show you guys that what you think is god isn't, your god gets smaller and smaller. To the point you are now back where you started, which is defending a generic god.

That's what we did when we were cavemen and the Greeks had every argument that you and I are having back when they had Greek gods. So in some ways our arguments are thousands of years old and in some ways they are new.

We have always wondered how/why. We hate not knowing. And the truth is, we don't know. But you liars say god came and visited Noah, Adam, Moses and then came and humped Mary. Some of you even claim god has visited you. You should all be locked up.

If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as (1) you conceded their necessity with the logic of your very own words in which (2) you necessarily stated that God exists! via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that (3) you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism. That's weird.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.

You might want to start praying.

Boss is that accurate about the seven things? Just wondering.

 

[Boss]

Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.

You might want to start praying.

Boss is that accurate about the seven things? Just wondering.

Is what accurate? That Mary should start praying? I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for her. I mean, she has come to the understanding that all the universe is pretty much smoke and mirrors, but it's a pretty damn impressive illusion.

 

[emilynghiem]

"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?

What makes more sense? Someone who says there is no god and pushes for a more intelligent society that isn't kept stupid by a stupid concept. I don't think god is good for people. Look at Isis in Iraq. That's god honey.

And I already told you you can't say "God is Wisdom or love". Point number 17:

1. God is the universe/love/laws of physics.
   We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
   
   “To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
   
   
   

Hi SB
1. Again, why can't people "push for a more intelligent society" REGARDLESS if people believe in god or not?
why is it framed as either/or that we cannot both have intelligence and faith in God? Why not have it ALL, take
the best of all of it and use that to check the weak spots we all have.
So where faith helps calm people down and stay strong during crisis, let's use it for that when it helps people.
And where not being caught up in religious stuff helps to stay objective, let's use objectivity where it helps.
And where we need both working together, let's use teams that have both to troubleshoot and solve problems better.

I don't see the need for any either/or diametrics here.

2. What I DO see is the need for forgiveness.

if you look at ISIS
if you look at Chinese crackdown on people
if you look at people who take their issues and project them onto victims of bullying, abuse and crime

Sealybobo the COMMON FACTOR is UNFORGIVENESS
it is NOT GOD
* the shooters at Columbine challenged others and wanted to rebel against God - there were things they couldn't forgive
and wanted retribution instead
* the Aurora shooter wanted to get back at being rejected for the field of study he wanted to excel it but was denied the chance
So he couldn't forgive that and ask help from others, he sought revenge to show these people he could outsmart the system
* the shooter in Washington could not forgive his cousin and killed several people in a state of retribution for killing his spirit

the issue is FORGIVENESS

3. Sealybobo as for names for God these are already established
this is nothing new

Wisdom as a name for God is older and more numerous in the Bible
than God as Heavenly Father.

If you don't like God = Wisdom
then why are you defining God = imaginary bogeyman
either

What do you believe is the driving force in life, the ulimate culmination or collective of all truth or all things.

Name what you consider the source of all truth or things in life
or if this is beyond you, that's fine. but align/equate God with that "highest thing above all other things"
and we can still hve the same conversation about
what causes things to work out in life and what causes things to go wrong.

We don't have to agree perfectly that God = ___________________
What matters is that we forgive when we frame things differently
and try to find a way that works for both of our backgrounds so it includes us equally.

Of course we are going to have differences, that can't be a requirement for peace
or all people would never get t here because we'd never agree enough!

Even husbands and wives who are happily married all their years
do not agree on some things. The key is forgiveness and working through the hardships anyway
because the relationsihp is greater and teh effort made in good faith has value for its own sake.

We love and share for the sake of loving and sharing and that's good enough.
We grow by understanding the other person comes from a slightly different perspective,
and we make room for each other. That's never going to be perfect, we just keep forgiving when it goes
wrong, and try to do better and learn and benefit from the experience.

 

[Boss]

If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as (1) you conceded their necessity with the logic of your very own words in which (2) you necessarily stated that God exists! via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that (3) you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism. That's weird.

The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma.

You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.

Well, first of all the Big Bang theory was never problematical for theism. In fact, it poses more problems for atheism than steady state theory did. And it not true that 99% of the universe's mass is nothingness. It's not nothingness. The rest is invisible, dark matter and dark energy.,

99 of the Mass of the Visible Universe Not Explained by CERN s Discovery of Higgs Boson

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as (1) you conceded their necessity with the logic of your very own words in which (2) you necessarily stated that God exists! via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that (3) you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism. That's weird.

The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma.

You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.

Yeah. He's does have quite an arsenal of the stuff all which necessarily concedes "The Seven Things"!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.

Well, first of all the Big Bang theory was never problematical for theism. In fact, it poses more problems for atheism than steady state theory did. And it not true that 99% of the universe's mass is nothingness. It's not nothingness. The rest is invisible, dark matter and dark energy.,

99 of the Mass of the Visible Universe Not Explained by CERN s Discovery of Higgs Boson

So true...

 

[Hollie]

If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as (1) you conceded their necessity with the logic of your very own words in which (2) you necessarily stated that God exists! via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that (3) you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism. That's weird.

The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma.

You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.

Yeah. He's does have quite an arsenal of the stuff all which necessarily concedes "The Seven Things"!

Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?

I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.

 

[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.

OK back up

Science is used for ONE LEVEL or approach to falsify or verify the OBJECTIONS
to your proof.

So your proof works on one level to address LOGIC definitions and consistent relations

And Science works alongside it to address objections
that can be resolved by Science.

These are not in conflict at all but complementary levels.

That's what I said. There's no conflict, but there is a problem for atheism.

Due to its inherent limitations and the nature of its necessary premise, the notion of science ever falsifying any of the axiomatic proofs of organic logic is paradoxically absurd, though it is logically conceivable that we might be able to verify the substance of the "God axiom" of organic logic someday with science if God ever willed it to be so. Essentially, there are only two, seemingly absurd, paradoxical hypothesis of science, which entail the suspension of two axiomatic proofs in organic logic: (1) the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes, (2) the "God axiom", which holds that the fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another, proving the positive, in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.

See posts:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/

 

[emilynghiem]

Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?

I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.

Hollie: does this mean that if you reject MD just saying they're true by stating them,
then you are doing similar by rejecting them as false just by stating so.

At least I offered to prove that Spiritual Healing can be verified as consistent by Science,
so that shows that more can be done than just rely on the syllogistic Logic by itself to change anyone's perception.

Science could be used to demonstrate why there is something
both unique and universal, both natural and spiritual (at the same time!) in Christian practice/teaching

So Hollie this would show both you were right about objecting to MD leaving this out, if it is the KEY to demonstration.
And he would be right that the Christian teachings are universal concepts and any denial of that will meet with contradiction.

You would both be right on some points and equally omitting others that hte other person is objecting to.

 

[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.

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.

OK back up

Science is used for ONE LEVEL or approach to falsify or verify the OBJECTIONS
to your proof.

So your proof works on one level to address LOGIC definitions and consistent relations

And Science works alongside it to address objections
that can be resolved by Science.

These are not in conflict at all but complementary levels.

That's what I said. There's no conflict, but there is a problem for atheism.

Due to its inherent limitations and the nature of its necessary premise, the notion of science ever falsifying any of the axiomatic proofs of organic logic is paradoxically absurd, though it is logically conceivable that we might be able to verify the substance of the "God axiom" of organic logic someday with science if God ever willed it to be so. Essentially, there are only two, seemingly absurd, paradoxical hypothesis of science, which entail the suspension of two axiomatic proofs in organic logic: (1) the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes, (2) the "God axiom", which holds that the fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another, proving the positive, in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.

See posts:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/

Yes our statements don't disagree then.

I am using Science to VERIFY Spiritual Healing which is not mentioned in your Logic proof.
But it is the key to helping with the forgiveness and healing process so people can work out
differences surrounding objections or conflicts with the proof. This helps with the process around it.

but since you put a disclaimer you are focusin gon the logic not science, these are not in conflict.
they complement and work together jsut fine.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as (1) you conceded their necessity with the logic of your very own words in which (2) you necessarily stated that God exists! via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that (3) you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism. That's weird.

The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma.

You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.

Yeah. He's does have quite an arsenal of the stuff all which necessarily concedes "The Seven Things"!

Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?

Based on the various assertions you've made on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, we have you down for five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, we have you down for the other two, #6 and #7, implicitly. Only, you ain't packin' a full deck, so we also have you down for you-know-what and giggles.

 

[Hollie]

Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?

I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.

The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.