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

[Justin Davis]

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we can in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms: everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.

God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!

everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your Seven Things argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.

The Seven Things argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.

Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic. That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you. God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us. He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this. Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself. The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.

Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nope, ok so I challenge you on both these attacks on people
for pointing out limits to the TAG approach.

1. First you said that I am full of BS, when I can prove what I said is 100% applicable.
2. Now you are assuming GT is a simpleton for pointing out limits which actually takes being clear headed!

M.D. this is why YOU come across as
these things that you project onto other people.

If you can't see that, then you are too full of your own self to see yourself objectively.

Empty your cup first, that you may be filled.
Remove the beam from your own eye, that you may see more clearly to help a neighbor remove a splinter.
Love and forgive others, as you would have forgiven unto you.

It's basic that if you want to share wisdom and truth with others,
you should make sure to practice what you preach!

Can we get that down first, and M.D. I think the other points will follow in turn!

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.

You're a hypocrite, Emily, and I see your true nature. So go ahead suck ass with the lying atheists. Tell us what you're really all about.

Gödel did not say what you claim, did he? That's not true, is it?

You believed GT's lies. You are naive, Emily. You have been duped, Emily. You're are a silly person, Emily., Your heard mentality material, Emily.

Are you gong to recant your statement about Gödel, Emily. Are going to apologize to the members of this board for repeating GT's lie, Emily, helping him mislead, deceive, Emily?

 

[G.T.]

This fool MD is a hoot.

A self appointed authority of garglesplat.

MD Emily has more integrity in her hair clip then you so in your whole self obsessed absurd world view dude.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Emily, are you gong to recant the bullshit that you put into your mouth that came from the mouth of that idiot in the video and from GT about the Transcendental Argument. Or are you just gong to repeat whatever bullshit comes out GT's mouth or is spewed by that pathological liar, Emily?

Emily, shove your trash about the TAG where it belongs, you damn fool. I, Boss, Justin, Where Are My Keys, Abba and several others know that GT's arguments against the TAG are baloney.

Stop repeating lies, Emily.

Answer this question, Emily, how can the axioms/tautologies of formal logic be informal logical fallacies? The answer to that question tells you why nothing that laymen atheists like GT and the dimwit in the video are telling could possibly be true.


Are you going to recant the lie repeated about Gödel, Emily?

 

[Hollie]

Nope, ok so I challenge you on both these attacks on people
for pointing out limits to the TAG approach.

1. First you said that I am full of BS, when I can prove what I said is 100% applicable.
2. Now you are assuming GT is a simpleton for pointing out limits which actually takes being clear headed!

M.D. this is why YOU come across as
these things that you project onto other people.

If you can't see that, then you are too full of your own self to see yourself objectively.

Empty your cup first, that you may be filled.
Remove the beam from your own eye, that you may see more clearly to help a neighbor remove a splinter.
Love and forgive others, as you would have forgiven unto you.

It's basic that if you want to share wisdom and truth with others,
you should make sure to practice what you preach!

Can we get that down first, and M.D. I think the other points will follow in turn!

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.

You're a hypocrite, Emily, and I see your true nature. So go ahead suck ass with the lying atheists. Tell us what you're really all about.

Gödel did not say what you claim, did he? That's not true, is it?

You believed GT's lies. You are naive, Emily. You have been duped, Emily. You're are a silly person, Emily., Your heard mentality material, Emily.

Are you gong to recant your statement about Gödel, Emily. Are going to apologize to the members of this board for repeating GT's lie, Emily, helping him mislead, deceive, Emily?

That would be herd, not heard mentality, you pompous moron.

And yes, your nonsensical TAG argument is a laughable joke that only a brain-dead fundie would hope to defend.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Apparent Whether or Knots

1. "Whether God actually exists or not, or whether the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility" -- M.D. Rawlings sounds like a jerk when he talks down to other people,
yet he expects to be respected when he can barely show respect himself.

Even if other people do not deserve respect or forgiveness,
the point of Christianity is to forgive and let God fix the problems,
so if M.D. were any type of Christian he should at least act like one.

2. "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" -- people are human, and if they can't get over how M.D. Rawlings sounds like another jerk pushing an agenda, you're already dead in the water at Step One, and might as well quit talking to a wall....

3. "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" -- if people can't get past #1 or #2 without getting hung up on attacking the speaker, then what good is it to push #3 even further with an audience that isn't listening and already wrote you off.

4. "Whether God actually exists or not, or 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" -- just means that if God is already defined to be something real, then that is true by definition and the proof defines itself. Big deal!

So the issue remains: If people agree, then any disagreements they have are more with the Speaker and how the points are presented or misrepresented; and if people don't agree, they will reject the entire proof by definitions they didn't agree with int the first place, Big Deal. Do we really need to stretch this out into 7 points?

5. "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality" -- if you are still pushing more points after this point, that is taken as proof that you must be just another pushy jerk with an agenda beyond just defining God and sticking to that, in which case you'd be done with step 1 and wouldn't require further explanation or confirmation from others while claiming proof doesn't rely on that!

6. "Whether God actually exists or not, or 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." ==> WTF, you already lost people at Step 1!

7. "Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise." And similarly, you contradict your own teachings of God if you insist on insulting, judging and blaming your audience instead of removing the beam from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in others'. If you recognized your conflicts equally as the ones on the sides of atheists who reject theists based on guilty by association, then maybe you'd at least be equal.

Conclusions:
A. 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.
B. Speakers who push these views, while not seeing how they come across as self-serving and inviting rejecting,
are equally baffling and come across as paradoxical if not nonsensical and hypocritical!

Weird? That's just human.
To fault other people yet commit the same wrongs, and wonder why
both sides think the other is being a hypocrite or contradicting themselves. They are both right!

Emily sounds like a liar when she repeats lies and fails to understand that it is my contempt for liars and hypocrites she's reading, that it's the likes of her with her fanatical, pseudoscientific claptrap, religious mumbo jumbo with a monetary motive behind it all, who are the jerks.

Are you going recant the lie you told about Gödel or not?

Are you gong to recant the lie you repeated about the TAG or not?

 

[G.T.]

Tag begs the question and is viciously circular.

Md Rawlings does not know what axiom means.

Md Rawlings cannot logically disprove all other theories aside from 'god' for existence

Md Rawlings is a blowhard. The lies are in your soul, if you have one. Jackass.

 

[G.T.]

I'm gonna start a new meme.

Rawlingsisms.

Rawlings: when the lights are on, but nobody's home.

Rawlings: when ego centric lies transcend good faith discussion.


Rawlings: when word salad is only enough calories for a brain diet.


Rawlings: cuz, uh, the necessary conditions for cognitive logistic diplomatic structures of the mind that developmentally mature minds masturbate to in a cosmological fashion dictates what everyone already knows! I'll mark you down for the thirteen necessary conditions for purely sophomoric wannabe 16th centural philosophic speak! DUH! WHAT THESE MORONS DONT KNOW OR LIE ABOUT IS THAT THE ONTOLOGY OF MY NIPPLES IS A WOMB! DUH!

 

[G.T.]

Rawlings: god made toilets. Toilets exist. Therefore god exists!!!!!! This has been peer reviewed in academia. Hold on I'll get you a peer reviewed paper on it, be right back!!

Rawlings: cuz...ugh...we exist so therefore duh obviously we were created by something cuz ugh...if we define ugh. Oh, fuck it. I'm a paradox : (




Rawlings: hey Justin stand up for a second I need to pee

 

[G.T.]

Rawlingsism #456: hey justin bebeh, I recommend a good read by Kant: the presupposition a list guide to dogma, for beginners.

I kant. I Kant. I really Kant.

Rawlings: Justin, babe, you were right about that one thing hon! Don't they see! Watch the atheists just attack now cuz they got nothing! Those moron dumbass liar clueless evil etc etc /hypocrisy

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.
their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.

what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?

.

It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of The Seven Things compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him. It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers

Looky there! Hollie said something that's right!

Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.

Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature, as if logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does. Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?

Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if logic did not a priori provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.

Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT. LOL!

Oh, wait! Don't do that after all! She finally got something right. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!

Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.

LOL! What boy, you dimwit? You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right! LOL! Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.

Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!

Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!

You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.

Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.

That is a lie.

You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.

You're a pathological liar, a sociopath. Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.

 

[G.T.]

Looky there! Hollie said something that's right!

Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.

Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature, as if logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does. Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?

Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if logic did not a priori provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.

Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT. LOL!

Oh, wait! Don't do that after all! She finally got something right. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!


LOL! What boy, you dimwit? You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right! LOL! Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.

Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!

Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!

You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.

Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.

That is a lie.

You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.

You're a pathological liar, a sociopath. Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.

Oops.

Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude

 

[G.T.]

You posted on that blog. Need more?

But don't apologize, narcissist. Being proven wrong right out in the open for all to see is good enough for me, "blue moon"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sweet! GT puts himself down for the Transcendental Argument Big Time and down for The Seven Things again, Part I: See Post #3945.

Even Amrchaos, our neighborhood solipsist, should be able to appreciate this one, in spite of the confusion of his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy and, consequently, is earlier misinterpretations of my posts.

Regarding the emboldened portion of your post: as I already explained, yes and no, for they are the means by which we define and describe some things directly and other things indirectly, hence, not in the way in which your expression would suggest.

Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.

This tells me you don't really understand the point that the guy in the video from whom you obviously got your notion, albeit, as mangled, is trying to make! The point the guy in the video is trying to make, which doesn't logically hold up, by the way, is a standard in the materialistic atheist's arsenal used to attack the TAG. It's nothing new to me. It's old news.

Logic is the prescriptive means by which we properly delineate the various properties and processes of existents in order to define and describe how they are, beginning with the normative standards of thought and inference/extrapolation. Hence, the fundamental nature of logic is a priori prescriptive.

Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.

The fundamental nature of the physical laws of nature are a posteriori descriptive as they describe how nature works.

Logic, at the human level, does not directly describe the realities (properties and processes) of nature! Logic is immaterial!

Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.

With the rational delineations of logic within our minds, we a priori establish the normative standards of (1) thought and (2) inference/extrapolation for justified true belief/knowledge, directly, then we should (ought!) objectively apply these standards to what (is!) the apparent reality of the various properties and processes of the existents outside our minds, in order to define and describe how they apparently are: ergo, we indirectly infer/extrapolate the physical laws of nature which are what actually describes, directly, the properties and processes of nature . . . or so we believe based on the assumption that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliably synchronized with the apparent actualities of the properties and processes of the empirical world of being outside our minds.

Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.

Or are you suggesting that we are not bound to the oughts of logic's prescriptive/normative nature and the standards thereof and can just describe reality any damn way we please as if human consciousness had primacy over existence? No. I don't think that's what you really want to say about the laws of logic at the prescriptive level of human apprehension at all.

LOL!

Or maybe, just maybe, you're conscious of a the logic that would be universally descriptive in nature at a transcendent level of being above it all, you know, for a Mind Whose consciousness would have primacy over all of existence.

LOL!

Oops. Is that what you're thinking? Did you make a Freudian solip like Mr. Solipsist did earlier? LOL!

 

[G.T.]

Copy.paste. robot.

No one cares.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!

Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!

You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.

Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.

That is a lie.

You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.

You're a pathological liar, a sociopath. Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.

Oops.

Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude

Yeah. That's the one I told you guys about, where I researched Objectivism. Everybody who read my posts about that on this thread knows about that one because I told you guys about that one, liar. Obviously, I'm not counting the one I told you guys about, liar. You won't find any others, because there aren't any others.


That's an Objectivist site, dummy. They're Randians. I thought you leftists didn't like Rand. LOL!

Remember when I shared these links about the pieces I wrote as a result of that research? Part of my research was to draw these guys out.

Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason

Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science


Now let's get back your other lies, the lies you told that gullible twit Emily who repeated your lies about Gödel and the TAG, arguments you know very well I exposed to be false and discredited.

Emily is an irresponsible lie repeater. She repeats lies because she doesn't verify things for herself, and apparently doesn't give a damn that she helps mislead others with her careless disregard for the company she keeps, the kind vermin she takes up with.

Look, everybody, Emily cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of what she's trying to sell you here.

This is all about money isn't it, Emily? Your pitches are all over the place.

In fact, I think Emily is Foxfyre.

Now let's talk about your other lies, GT, that you tried to deceive Justin with, tried to mislead him with, regarding the nature of logic and the laws of physics: the nature of the laws of logic is not descriptive, but prescriptive; the laws of physics are descriptive, isn't that right, liar?

You just make things up, don't you liar?

Hey, Emily, you want to talk crap about me and the God's truths? Is that it?

 

[G.T.]

Three pinnocchios.

"I only ever posted on my own blog liar."

"Oh, that other one doesn't count liar ."


pathetic.

This meltdown is epic.



Want me to post more, or you want a chance to apologize first?



(You know there IS more, right dumb dumb?)

 

[G.T.]

Also, tag has been refuted nitwit.

You dip duck dodge every relevant counterpoint. Troll.

 

[G.T.]

Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!

Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!

You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.

Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.

That is a lie.

You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.

You're a pathological liar, a sociopath. Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.

Oops.

Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude

By the way, I recommend this read for anyone who doesnt already know what a big joke this guy is. Its every bit of awesome.