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

[Justin Davis]

Sure I do.

You're too pussy to face it head on.

God created knowledge can't be an axiom until your prove:

Knowledge is a creation.
All other possibilities for origins are absolutely false.


Can ya Lil Justin?

No, no you can't. Which is why you need to pretend you don't know what axiom means and continue your snake oil sales


Carry on, cowards

This post is awarded the presupper 3d.

Because the coward presupper necessarily dipped, ducked and dodged it and cannot refute it.

Busted lying again. Shut up, punk. You're the liar and the coward. Mr. Straw Man.

That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.

GT is the missing links. I like that meme.

Presupper in three d for everyone to see. Dipduckdodge the refutation of the childish tag.

GT is the missing links.

 

[Justin Davis]

That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you tell the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.

I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?

GT is the missing links. I like that meme.

"why would he count that one"




You guys are like five year olds, I can't take it.



Justin: last chance. If you want more links - first deny they exist. Then I'll post them. Mmkay? Last call bud I don't have all night for you to weasel.

GT is the missing links.

 

[Justin Davis]

That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.

I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?

GT is the missing links. I like that meme.

 

[G.T.]

Is it a mystery that you queens are the same woman do you think, justin?

Obsessive copy pasting the same terribly written and horribly childish posts is yet another trait you snake oil salesmen share.

Hold hands?

 

[Justin Davis]

Who is the missing links?

GT is the missing links.

 

[Justin Davis]

Who is the missing links?

GT is the missing links.

 

[Hollie]

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?

So, now you're reduced to furthering conspiracy theories?

Pathetic!

 

[Hollie]

That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you tell the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.

I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?

GT is the missing links. I like that meme.

"why would he count that one"




You guys are like five year olds, I can't take it.



Justin: last chance. If you want more links - first deny they exist. Then I'll post them. Mmkay? Last call bud I don't have all night for you to weasel.

That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.

I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?


GT is the missing links. I like that meme.

Flailing your Pom Poms is so cute.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sweet! GT puts himself down for the Transcendental Argument again and 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.


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.


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

 

[Hollie]

Sweet! GT puts himself down for the Transcendental Argument again and 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!

This is the nonsense you have cut and pasted multiple times.

How sad for you that you're reduced to just parroting the same slogans and cliches'

 

[G.T.]

As we notice justin dip duck dodges directly denying other links exist, after I offered to provide them once he does so.

I won't let my effort go in vein. First I need the mealy mouthed bitch to sack up and say they don't exist. We will see who the liar is. I'll be sigging it right after you eat crow too Lil guy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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


GT, do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?

No, of course not.

The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic according to "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily prescriptive/normative in nature, they do not directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!

Hence, he concludes that they are not necessarily universal truths and do not necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.

And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah." Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.


Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.

However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy: the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments from ignorance/beg the question.

(Oh, by the way, Amrchaos, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)


But:

We do not impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition . . . because the latter are the logical necessities of formal logic that do not go away regardless of what labels morons slap on them; we only apply the fallacies of informal logic to (1) the secondary propositions of logical possibility apparent to human cognition when they are fallaciously/mistakenly asserted as if they were (2) logical necessities of human cognition (you know, because they're not actually the latter at all, but the former, i.e., the secondary propositions of logical possibility).

If it were sensible to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, all of the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic would be fallacies, including axioms that never go away like 2 + 2 = 4.
​

(And don’t give me any of QW’s barking madness that the principle of identity does not by necessity foundationally and, therefore, universally apply in all forms of logic, which is what he falsely and stupidly implied, including in constructive logic, which merely suspends, as an operation of the principle of identity, the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination for analytic purposes.)

Ah! But what’s the real irony in all of this?

Drum roll

GT—inadvertently, unwittingly, via a Freudian slip —apprehends that logic must ultimately apply to all of reality descriptively, albeit, above the level of human cognition . . . otherwise our assumption that the physical laws of nature are reliably synchronized with organic logic renders everything we think we know about the empirical world beyond is . . . well, problematical to say the least.

Everything the delineations of the laws of organic logic compel us to believe is that there must ultimately be an all-encompassing Agent of Logic (for Whom the laws of logic are not merely prescriptive, but descriptive, as One Whose consciousness has primacy over all of existence) directing traffic from above the level of the cosmological order’s existence, the Agent of Logic Who makes sure that the logic He gave us, which is His own logic, lines up with the logic He gave to the physical laws of nature, which is also His own logic!

GT, stamp #6 of The Sevens Things on your forehead. Hunt down the idiot in that video and stamp it on his too.

Any questions?

 

[G.T.]

Copy paste queen dodges again!

Axiom =\= non universally accepted
Other possibilities not disproven means =\= axiom.

Dip duck dodge, dance suckkkkas!!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

As we notice justin dip duck dodges directly denying other links exist, after I offered to provide them once he does so.

I won't let my effort go in vein. First I need the mealy mouthed bitch to sack up and say they don't exist. We will see who the liar is. I'll be sigging it right after you eat crow too Lil guy.

Any questions?

 

[G.T.]

Another dodge. Pity you all don't have the balls.

Anyhoo, nother W for the Captain.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Who is the missing links?

GT is the missing links.

Justin, give it a rest, okay. Let it go. GT is a liar. We know that. Everyone whose had dealings with GT knows he's a liar. Hoillie's pathological liar too, and now I know Emily to an utter nitwit.

Hey, Emily, I got oceanfront property for sale in Arizona! What do I hear for the first bid?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!

GTLINKS. There's your meme.

 

[G.T.]

Psychos, the two/one of you. Straight up psycho.

 

[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.

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.

 

[G.T.]

Fellow theists in this very thread who said at one point or another they were tired of md's shit:

Breezewood
Boss
Q.w.
Emily

Armchaos has you on ignore
Gt has you dodging the refutation of tag like you're paid to do it.

Holly enjoys poking you retards with a stick and giggling in your face when you copy paste obsessively in return.




Burn those bridges m.d. snake oil. Watch them all burn as you continue to reveal to everyone whom encounters you the gigantic scumbag of a human you are.