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

[M.D. Rawlings]

amrchoas seems to be incapable of objectivity too, stupidly imaging, for example, based on nothing at all, that I, of all people, don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and which of the two is arguably/routinely more sure. Never mind that I already established my knowledge regarding these things way early in this thread, long before he showed up. LOL! And of course his misunderstanding of what the pertinent distinction is goes to two things: (1) his inability to objectively back out of his paradigm and allow that his philosophical bias is NOT the formal, real-world standard for logic and science and (2) his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy.

I see clearly what his cognitive problems are. Has he backed out of either one of these things long enough to competently state what The Seven Things are actually premised on metaphysically and logically, not in the reactionary terms of his worldview, but, objectively, on the terms of their premise?

No!

So because you guys never put into evidence what the actuality is regarding the nature of these things . . . on their own terms, not as filtered through your personal biases, it's not clear that you even know what it is you're arguing against in the first place.

 

[Hollie]

Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups

Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?! Shut up. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?! Shut up. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?! Shut up. The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?! Shut up. God is not sentient? Shut up! Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?! Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?! Shut. Up. You. Idiot.


LOL!

1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!

You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument

2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!

Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you. I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.

3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!

To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't. But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.

4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!

G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.

5. God is not sentient?

I do not assert this in your proof! I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD. I do not assert anything. That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever OPEN!!

You are asserting that God is sentient. You do not prove this, you assume this in your attempts to argue 3)


6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!

I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism. If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.

7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!

Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements. OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.

Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.

Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument. Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples. Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.

That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument. Not deductive, but inductive.

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of Nuh-huh! It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh! Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, philosophical metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which we (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of the what and into the domain of the how and the why does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is my reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy. There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same a priori nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues: apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be materialism, irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism, antirealism, hard solipsism or any other kind of stupid ism.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can? I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective. It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about. Hollie, especially, remains clueless. A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that #1 and #2 are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do: do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it: system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

Emily: It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

Rawlings: And its commonsensical persons like Boss and I who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!

I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own Rawling'isms. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.

This latest disaster of Rawling'isms was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.

The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again. No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.

On the contrary, Mr. Bloviate, your entirely subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of your polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions, are problematic and hinders your ability to objectively evaluate opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of your polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions.

Check!

 

[Hollie]

amrchoas seems to be incapable of objectivity too, stupidly imaging, for example, based on nothing at all, that I, of all people, don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and which of the two is arguably/routinely more sure. Never mind that I already established my knowledge regarding these things way early in this thread, long before he showed up. LOL! And of course his misunderstanding of what the pertinent distinction goes to two things: (1) his inability to objectively back out of his paradigm and allow that his philosophical bias is NOT the formal, real-world standard for logic and science and (2) his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy.

I see clearly what his cognitive problems are. Has he backed out of either one of these things long enough to competently state what The Seven Things are actually premised on metaphysically and logically?

No!

You, of all people, don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and which of the two are arguably/routinely more sure.


Check!

 

[sealybobo]

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

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

.

just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?

also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?

or that whatever exists had to be created ....

just curious.

.

I think before you can say you know for sure god created the universe you would first have to know how he created it. Good point! Theists don't even know how the universe was created and yet they are sure who created it. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

 

[sealybobo]

Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups

Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?! Shut up. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?! Shut up. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?! Shut up. The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?! Shut up. God is not sentient? Shut up! Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?! Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?! Shut. Up. You. Idiot.


LOL!

1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!

You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument

2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!

Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you. I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.

3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!

To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't. But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.

4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!

G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.

5. God is not sentient?

I do not assert this in your proof! I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD. I do not assert anything. That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever OPEN!!

You are asserting that God is sentient. You do not prove this, you assume this in your attempts to argue 3)


6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!

I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism. If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.

7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!

Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements. OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.

Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.

Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument. Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples. Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.

That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument. Not deductive, but inductive.

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of Nuh-huh! It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh! Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, philosophical metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which we (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of the what and into the domain of the how and the why does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is my reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy. There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same a priori nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues: apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be materialism, irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism, antirealism, hard solipsism or any other kind of stupid ism.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can? I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective. It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about. Hollie, especially, remains clueless. A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that #1 and #2 are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do: do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it: system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

Emily: It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

Rawlings: And its commonsensical persons like Boss and I who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!

I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own Rawling'isms. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.

This latest disaster of Rawling'isms was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.

The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again. No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.

Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing. Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.

USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

 

[Justin Davis]

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

While I think amrchaos is just pulling on our legs with the inductive and deductive stuff, that's funny.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

While I think amrchaos is just pulling on our legs with the inductive and deductive stuff, that's funny.

I don't know. Maybe.

 

[Hollie]

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

The boy has lost it.

His entirely subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of his polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions, are problematic.

 

[sealybobo]

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

The boy has lost it.

His entirely subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of his polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions, are problematic.

Last night I was watching this show on these monkey's and how they take care of each other but will kill another monkey that isn't part of their tribe. They looked so much like pre historic man. They were swimming in this pool and they were amazed at how the water splashed when the rain drop hit the water. You should have seen the look on their faces. I could imagine them thinking it must be magic or a god. We can't get into monkey's heads yet and perhaps they aren't smart enough yet, but one day I'm sure we will be able to convince them that god exists. I'm sure it won't be difficult. Look at us right?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

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

.

just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?

also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?

or that whatever exists had to be created ....

just curious.

.

I didn't digress. I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God. In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible. I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true. Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves. Anybody can buy and read a Bible. That's all.

The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots

1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.

5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
That's weird.

Show me a link

Boob, you're grandstanding again with babbling incoherent nonsense.

That's all I have for you today pal. Tomorrow is an election day. Stay home.

You need link for things that are objectively self-evident? Someone else to tell you that's it's okay believe that which is obviously true logically? Dude.

 

[amrchaos]

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

Yeah. Got it. And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine? Since when? That overthrows the ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? How could that be? The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place. It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims: human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent. LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge? Still working on that? Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!

Understand what you are asking:

What caused the singularity?

That cannot be conclusively determined. I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity. Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is. The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe. Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God. However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given. )

You, on the other hand, assume it has to be a sentient being. That is not being objective.

As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective. For instance, it can be assumed that that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!

What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument. So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?

So 2 problems arises:

1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause. Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.

2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being. In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.




You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!

You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument

2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!

Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you. I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.

3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!

To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't. But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.

4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!

G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.

5. God is not sentient?

I do not assert this in your proof! I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD. I do not assert anything. That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever OPEN!!

You are asserting that God is sentient. You do not prove this, you assume this in your attempts to argue 3)


6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!

I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism. If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.

7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!

Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements. OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.

Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.

Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument. Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples. Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.

That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument. Not deductive, but inductive.

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of Nuh-huh! It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh! Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, philosophical metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which we (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of the what and into the domain of the how and the why does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is my reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy. There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same a priori nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues: apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be materialism, irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism, antirealism, hard solipsism or any other kind of stupid ism.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can? I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective. It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about. Hollie, especially, remains clueless. A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that #1 and #2 are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do: do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it: system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

Emily: It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

Rawlings: And its commonsensical persons like Boss and I who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!

I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own Rawling'isms. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.

This latest disaster of Rawling'isms was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.

The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again. No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.

Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing. Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.

USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.

No real thinkers are thinking that they prove anything beyond what they are on face of them. They are just the objective, self-evident facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and you are a liar, plenty of theists understand what I'm talking about. As for the rest, they're obviously not thinking.

But what are you taking about anyway? You put yourself down for them via your own words. All of you have put yourselves down with your own words.

Recall?

sealybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension.
#5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

No one escapes The Seven Things.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

.

just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?

also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?

or that whatever exists had to be created ....

just curious.

.

I didn't digress. I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God. In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible. I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true. Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves. Anybody can buy and read a Bible. That's all.

The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.

Why would anyone think that any of the bibles are a credible source of objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications or direct revelation from the gods?

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't know. Maybe.

He has to be. I know some don't get it but come on like you said if what he's saying was true, no arguments are deductive. It's crazy.

 

[Justin Davis]

Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups

Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?! Shut up. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?! Shut up. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?! Shut up. The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?! Shut up. God is not sentient? Shut up! Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?! Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?! Shut. Up. You. Idiot.


LOL!

1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!

You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument

2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!

Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you. I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.

3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!

To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't. But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.

4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!

G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.

5. God is not sentient?

I do not assert this in your proof! I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD. I do not assert anything. That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever OPEN!!

You are asserting that God is sentient. You do not prove this, you assume this in your attempts to argue 3)


6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!

I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism. If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.

7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!

Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements. OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.

Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.

Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument. Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples. Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.

That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument. Not deductive, but inductive.

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of Nuh-huh! It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh! Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, philosophical metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which we (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of the what and into the domain of the how and the why does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is my reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy. There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same a priori nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues: apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be materialism, irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism, antirealism, hard solipsism or any other kind of stupid ism.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can? I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective. It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about. Hollie, especially, remains clueless. A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that #1 and #2 are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do: do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it: system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

Emily: It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

Rawlings: And its commonsensical persons like Boss and I who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!

I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own Rawling'isms. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.

This latest disaster of Rawling'isms was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.

The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again. No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.

Hollie: You're wrong but I don't know why.

 

[Hollie]

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of Nuh-huh! It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh! Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, philosophical metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which we (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of the what and into the domain of the how and the why does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is my reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy. There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same a priori nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues: apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be materialism, irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism, antirealism, hard solipsism or any other kind of stupid ism.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can? I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective. It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about. Hollie, especially, remains clueless. A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that #1 and #2 are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do: do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it: system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

Emily: It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

Rawlings: And its commonsensical persons like Boss and I who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!

I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own Rawling'isms. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.

This latest disaster of Rawling'isms was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.

The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again. No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.

Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing. Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.

USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.

No real thinkers are thinking that they prove anything beyond what they are on face of them. They are just the objective, self-evident facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and you are a liar, plenty of theists understand what I'm talking about. As for the rest, they're obviously not thinking.

But what are you taking about anyway? You put yourself down for them via your own words. All of you have put yourselves down with your own words.

Recall?

sealybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension.
#5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

No one escapes The Seven Things.

Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
1. We exist.

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to pwoove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


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!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

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)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

 

[amrchaos]

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

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

.

just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?

also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?

or that whatever exists had to be created ....

just curious.

.

I didn't digress. I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God. In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible. I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true. Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves. Anybody can buy and read a Bible. That's all.

The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.

Why would anyone think that any of the bibles are a credible source of objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications or direct revelation from the gods?

I can explin why people would hold the Bible as a credible source. The process of doing so can be considered a form of inductive logic s well.

First, list some of the evidence for
1) The people that tells you it is credible.
2)The benefits one can find in the aspects of the world view it creates
3) Testimony of experiences of others
4)Personal experiences(if the individual has them)

Depending on how much you trust these forms of evidence, the argument that can be made for the Bible and what it says can be overwhelmingly true to certain individuals.

It is easy to tell that such an argument is inductive. Therefore skepticism of any and all evidence is possible.

 

[sealybobo]

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of Nuh-huh! It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh! Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, philosophical metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which we (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of the what and into the domain of the how and the why does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is my reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy. There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same a priori nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues: apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be materialism, irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism, antirealism, hard solipsism or any other kind of stupid ism.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can? I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective. It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about. Hollie, especially, remains clueless. A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that #1 and #2 are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do: do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it: system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

Emily: It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

Rawlings: And its commonsensical persons like Boss and I who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!

I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own Rawling'isms. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.

This latest disaster of Rawling'isms was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.

The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again. No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.

Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing. Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.

USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.

No real thinkers are thinking that they prove anything beyond what they are on face of them. They are just the objective, self-evident facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and you are a liar, plenty of theists understand what I'm talking about. As for the rest, they're obviously not thinking.

But what are you taking about anyway? You put yourself down for them via your own words. All of you have put yourselves down with your own words.

Recall?

sealybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension.
#5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

No one escapes The Seven Things.

I agree with the thing I said but not your 7 things or when you write that no one escapes the 7 things. I've already escaped.

What is it that you think is unescapable?

#1. I agree with the point that I exist. After that you're just rambling.
#2. No I don't assume his existence.

Things can exist in different contexts: God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions.

But it is also true that theists do not presuppose god’s non-existence, atheists are simply unconvinced of god’s existence. Arguments made by theists can be refuted without appealing to a god’s potential non-existence.
Arguments made by atheists against god’s existence, be they a priori or a posteriori, are not invalid due to the fact that proponents of presuppositionalism have failed to establish reason and logic as being dependant upon the existence of god.