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

[G.T.]

This dumb ass still does not understand what an axiom is?

Well, that's rhetorical.


As you were.

 

[G.T.]

It's a pretty simple concept.

Logical is a tool used to describe "what is."

"What is" has no proven origin.

No proven origin means that it cannot be ASSERTED IN LOGIC (premises must each be absolute in order to form a sound argument) that something "created" everything, or knowledge.

Since no origin is proven, since no origin is universally accepted, "god created everything" is not an axiom.

Since "god created everything" cannot be asserted as an axiom because to BE axiomatic, all other possibilities for existence NECESSARILY must be ruled out, and ruled out ABSOLUTELY, it remains a belief and belief only, not an axiomatic truth statement.

TAG begs the question. Those who use TAG are simpletons, in terms of intellectual maturity.

It's snake oil for charlatans.

 

[Hollie]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

 

[G.T.]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

I particularly enjoyed the blogger who pointed out that m.d. is not much more than a whining baby who resorts to temper tantrum and name calling and somehow 'forgets' to respond to points which directly refute him.....such as 'god creating knowledge' cannot be axiomatic because a: knowledge isn't proven to be a creatION, and B: failure to rule out all other possibilities.

Presuppers are quite daft.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

No, he is not a troll.

Just very stubborn and thinks his pile of poop doesn't stink
while everyone else is buried in BS according to him.

 

[emilynghiem]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Highest Conceivable Standard of Divine Attribution Does Not Beg the Question by Precluding the Arguable Potentialities of the Various Forms of Polytheism or Pantheism


The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is the construct of God as a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself, moreover, an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

This doesn't prevent anyone from inserting polytheism in the place of the generic construct if that's one's poison. I already made that clear and why that logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I were to write gods or any given descriptor that denotes some form of pantheism, folks would complain about that, wouldn't they?

Yes. Of course they would.

And If not, why not?

We go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution precisely because it is the only all-inclusive standard!

Knock Knock Anybody home?

If we were to start with a lower standard, the obviously higher/highest possibilities would be arbitrarily eliminated. So it is any given lower standard for divine attribution that is subjective and unjustifiably begs the question, not the objectively highest conceivable standard.

The highest conceivable standard allows for the conceptualization and the insertion of divinity as a collective whole of individuals or as a pantheistic whole.

As I wrote elsewhere:

You're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument: from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., the conclusion of the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It is necessary to define/assert the construct of God in the terms of its objectively highest standard of attribution; otherwise, you are beg the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But pantheism is not precluded! And this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is (1) conscious of the fact that the objectively highest standard of attribution is a conscious, transcendently non-contingent divinity and is (2) conscious of the fact that he cannot logically rule out that possibility for divinity.​

That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, even classical, polytheistic philosophers: for the sake of simplicity/economy and to make sure they do not preclude any given polytheistic model of divinity, pantheistic model of divinity or monotheistic model of divinity.

In other words, it is understood that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is asserted for the purpose of universal inclusiveness, not to beg the question.

Duh!

A polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option of a higher degree, as is any given form a pantheism, against the purely material, non-theistic potentiality for origin.

Duh!

The only reason some are objecting to the universal, philosophical standard of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or to the universal, scientific standard of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin is because it is manifest that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution carries the greatest weight of probability.

Too bad. Whether they be ultimately right or not, the objectively applied imperatives of human logic do not permit them to usurp the issue on the grounds of their fanatical, intellectual bigotry, do not permit them to arbitrarily preclude what they don't believe to be true about God.

Here babycakes.
While you are acting like a defensive pit bull barking and marking your territory,
here's a bone I'll throw your way to chew on:

Search Results

1. Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
   Wikipedia
   
   Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument for God's existence by the ... From axioms 1 through 4, Gödel argued that in some possible world there exists God.
   ‎History of Gödel's proof - ‎Outline of Gödel's proof - ‎See also - ‎Notes
   
   
2. Is There Mathematical Proof of God? - Christianity - About.com
   christianity.about.com › ... › Inspirational Bible Devotions by Topic
   
   Mathematical Proof of God - Jupiterimages / Getty images ... Through his spiritual struggle in the months following his father's death, Jack discovered something ...
3. Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - Spiegel Online
   SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten › English Site › Germany › Science
   Der Spiegel
   
   Oct 23, 2013 - Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel kept his proof of God's existence a ... Now two scientists say they have proven it mathematically using a computer. ... The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are ...
4. Scientists Prove God Exists? Austrian Researchers Use ...
   Christian News The Christian Post › world
   The Christian Post
   
   Oct 31, 2013 - Two scientists have declared they have proved the existence of God using nothing more than advanced mathematics and a computer.
5. Two Germans with a MacBook prove that God exists « Why ...
   whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/.../two-germa...
   Why Evolution is True
   
   Nov 1, 2013 - Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct — at least on a mathematical level — by way of higher ...
6. God Exists, Says Math: Modal Logic and Software Prove ...
   God Exists Says Math Modal Logic and Software Prove G del s Logicgodel-right-god.../38801
   
   Oct 31, 2013 - Modern software and math have verified Gödel's proofs of a being that ...'S', through a given point 'G' that is not on a different straight line 'L' ...
7. Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - ABC News
   abcnews.go.com › Technology
   ABC News
   
   Oct 27, 2013 - But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the ... what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology. ... The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are ...
8. The Mathematical Proof of God's Existence - YouTube
   ► 6:41► 6:41
   The Mathematical Proof of God s Existence - YouTube
   Aug 16, 2007 - Uploaded by Arthur Taylor
   I wrote this proof in 2003, in an attempt to convince my collegemath ... God can satisfy the thirst for order and certainty,throughthe order of ...

 

[G.T.]

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.

 

[amrchaos]

Emily, I see where you coming from.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did your instructor take pity on and give you a C so your parents would keep throwing away good money after bed on your education? LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

 

[emilynghiem]

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.

Well we did agree that the nature of origin/creator/God/Universe cannot be known but is faith based.

So we can't possibly be expecting to resolve something factual that is faith based.

The most we could be looking to do is to compare notes and try to iron out conflicts that we can.

GT just because M.D. is not fully aware of the various people's ROLES in the larger process
doesn't mean he isn't indirectly participating in it.

you dont have to be fully aware of the process for it to be moving forward,
and dragging you with it.

Thanks for being one of those willing to see and look at the bigger picture.
I think MD underestimates Boss, BreezeWood, Justin, you and others
willing to question points.

how else are we supposed to reach an understanding
if we do not actively seek to address the points where we are falling over each other or talking past each other?

Of course there is a process going on that is greater than the proof itself.

This TAG is more like the base of the rocket launcher just to get the rocket going.

We can discuss any part of the proof, or the issues we have with people or ideas
around it, and still make progress.

Again, since the answers are going to come out differently for each person,
the point is NOT to come out with the "exact same answer" but to be able"
to work with and reconcile ALL the different answers and ways of looking at God.

I think MD will come around,
but it looks like people like you and me will have to be the "bigger person"
and continue to reach out first, if we are more objective about working with pepole
despite the flaws we see.

If MD and Boss get so fed up frustrated or insulted that it gets in the way of
working out issues logistically, it will be up to the people who ARE willing to
let go and give more room, to straighten and clarify points while others huff and puff and run off.....

 

[G.T.]

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did your instructor take pity on and give you a C so your parents would keep throwing away good money after bed on your education. LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Actually you're a zealot with his head so far up his own ass that he signs certain posts he makes as though to add an extra umph - "Rawlings."

But underneath your bravado you're the actual dummy in the room. And trying to speak like philosophers of the sixteenth century is making you seem really desperate A: because a lot of the time you're literally not making any sense and B: people don't talk like that any more. Its 2014. It doesn't make you appear smarter as is your goal. The counter is true: it makes you look overtly fucking desperate.

TAG is for suckers, and you're one. Raise your hand. Be proud.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, I see where you coming from.

Great! I think we can work in some of what you brought up; all the pieces work together somehow.

If we can get Boss and BreezeWood to try to keep working things out with M.D.,
with what both of them have to offer also,
maybe we get past the negatives and find better ways to stay focused on the positive points.

Everyone here has something unique to offer that is otherwise missing.
Or we wouldn't be here. I think MD will come around more as he feels more of us
are really TRYING to work with him to resolve valid points we see are missing,
and we are not merely trying to undercut or undermine the good that can come from this.
it doesn't have to be a bad thing to bring problems out in the open. For some reason M.D. sees that critical response
as "negative" when actually it is POSITIVE and necessary to talk and work these things out.

Maybe that view will change as more people focus on the positive potential here.
if we help each other to share, maybe this onesided defensiveness will reduce or stop obstructing the process.

Thanks amrchaos

I don't think my Catholic theology logician friend is going to respond,
but maybe we can find something online that has already spoken to those points
and just recreate it ourselves with M.D.'s help to tie it to his TAG approach.
If he wants other people to calm down and listen to the raw points, he's going to have to do the same on his side.
and we'll start getting somewhere....

 

[G.T.]

Emily, I see where you coming from.

Great! I think we can work in some of what you brought up; all the pieces work together somehow.

If we can get Boss and BreezeWood to try to keep working things out with M.D.,
with what both of them have to offer also,
maybe we get past the negatives and find better ways to stay focused on the positive points.

Everyone here has something unique to offer that is otherwise missing.
Or we wouldn't be here. I think MD will come around more as he feels more of us
are really TRYING to work with him to resolve valid points we see are missing,
and we are not merely trying to undercut or undermine the good that can come from this.
it doesn't have to be a bad thing to bring problems out in the open. For some reason M.D. sees that critical response
as "negative" when actually it is POSITIVE and necessary to talk and work these things out.

Maybe that view will change as more people focus on the positive potential here.
if we help each other to share, maybe this onesided defensiveness will reduce or stop obstructing the process.

Thanks amrchaos

I don't think my Catholic theology logician friend is going to respond,
but maybe we can find something online that has already spoken to those points
and just recreate it ourselves with M.D.'s help to tie it to his TAG approach.
If he wants other people to calm down and listen to the raw points, he's going to have to do the same on his side.
and we'll start getting somewhere....

The raw points have been listened to.

They are fallacies.

By definition.

I don't know why or how you continue to misunderstand.

Its not that he's being misread.

Its that TAG is an unsound argument. It begs the question, its circular reasoning that starts with a presupposition that what its proving is already assumed true in the opening premise of the argument.

You keep implying he simply needs to communicate better, or more cordial.

NO, the very argument (TAG) itself is a fallacy.

Good jeebus

 

[G.T.]

Emily I know you have good intentions and all, but you're wasting a lot of time making posts that are a complete misread of whats going in.

I'm not ignoring md's points because he's a dick


I'm seeing and reading his points quite clearly.

TAG is a logical fallacy.

You cannot.prove god.by asserting god in the premise.

So when you say things like 'maybe tag fits in somewhere...."

No, it doesn't. You're wasting time be even saying something like that.

And last point: tag is not md's. Its been around and debunked as a fallacy but by fundies for.centurie .

 

[amrchaos]

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.

But that hinges on your notions of what God is. I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).

If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with C. LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Ha Ha, you are a riot!!

I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!

You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us? And How?

 

[G.T.]

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.

But that hinges on your notions of what God is. I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).

If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with C. LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Ha Ha, you are a riot!!

I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!

You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us? And How?

No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.

So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.

 

[G.T.]

I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.

Arm, tag is this argument:

1. God created all knowledge.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. Therefore, god exists.

A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.

Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove.

They call tag PROOF that god exists.

If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.

But that hinges on your notions of what God is. I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).

If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with C. LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Ha Ha, you are a riot!!

I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!

You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us? And How?

Hi Amrchaos:
For the sake of discussing things between just the people here, for starters, and as an example of the larger process
it would take to replicate this for "all people"

Why not take a simple roll call, and ask Boss, Breezewood, you and GT, etc.
to LIST the attributes or meanings of God we personally identify or associate with God::
both a positive list AND a negative list.

I gave my list of most commonly cited attributes: Love, truth, wisdom, life, forces of nature, creation/universe,
universal laws or good will for all humanity.

I notice that some people like Hollie focus on the NEGATIVE associations with God.
So why not tally up a list of both groups of traits? And then try to align from there.

We can still tie this in with MD's TAG approach to showing consistency or inconsistency with definitions of God.
But avoid fighting over God = Almighty or what is the difference between Christian God and broader views.

I personally would say God must equal the source of ALL these aspects,
and that the negatives could be more consistently aligned with the Opposite of God/Christ.
May i suggest we start with the attributes, then try to agree how best to align them with consistent language without
conflicting with terms that other people use differently. Concepts/Principles first, and then allow the language to follow after...