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

[M.D. Rawlings]

By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.

It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your Seven Things argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.

Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your Seven Things argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.

No. Boss. It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything. It's a bad position to take. You're making a very serious error. This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers. God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from #3, #4 and #6 of The Seven Things.

To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism. There are no truths. None! All is chaos. Everything is an illusion, a lie. It's the same things as saying that God does not exist. You simply do not grasp the implications. God theologized us. It's not the other way around. That is the only thing that is rational.

It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy too! He just makes things up constantly!

Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Yeah. It's all snake oil. It's always this or that, but it's never an argument that you punks make.

Oh, so now QW wasn't lying to all of us? That's not what you said before. We both know his computer argument was utter bullshit, crackpottery. That’s back when you were still making some sense. Ah! But then you went all stupid when the implications hit you, didn't you.

Pathetic.

What a balless coward you are.

The little girl ran from the truth and has been running ever since.

I don't heard think. Does is look like I give a damn what others think?

What a puss. Is that your default? Are you another lemming?

That's a rhetorical. Of course you are.

Appeal to the authority of liars and hypocrites and morons who had their asses handed to them, eh?

Is that it, limpwrist?

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

What a womanish little dink you are. Can't stand on your own two feet with any real arguments, just lies and straw men . . . and if that doesn't work appeal to the authority of liars and morons who had their asses handed to them.

Pathetic.

You know damn well I drove QW's ass off this thread. Put that lying hypocrite Foxfyre on the list too.

None of you punks have refuted anything I've argued. It's always personal crap, but no real arguments, except for Boss. Boss is not of that ilk. Boss always makes real arguments from a sincere belief. Whether he's pissed at me or not. I don't care. He has my respect. He makes real arguments.

The rest of you are phonies, liars, know-nothings, closed-minded, fanatical twits.

Real men don't give a damn. Boss is a real man. Justin's a real man. WAMKeys is a real man. And there were plenty others.

You act like a woman.

I notice that the likes of you and Hollie and Emily and Foxfyre and Amrchaos and that other idiot who went on about mountains out of "no hills at all": you all sucked ass with each other . . . not with arguments, but with little girl lies and gossip and bald declarations never backed by anything but more bald declarations that mysteriously never address the actual essence of my arguments . . . and, "Oh, isn't he an asshole?" LOL!

What a bunch suck asses.

The one thing I'll give QW despite the sneak that he is, at least he's his own sneak.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

What lies are you talking about?

1. I said that your TAG approach works for those it works for.
And it doesn't work for those it doesn't work for.
That is true, you can see here,
the people who agree that it has validity already believe in a God of some form
and so we relate to what you are saying or trying to say.
The people who DO NOT relate to or agree/believe
do NOT relate to your TAG approach and have stated so clearly!

What is untrue about that?

2. It is common sense that people do not have infinite knowledge
and we could be wrong. that is not a lie, that is just a natural fact
that human perception and knowledge is finite.

What are you interpreting as lying?

Sorry if we are communicating so badly
that I come across as lying to you.

A. Unlike liars who are trying to deny, suppress or manipulate the truth,
my only intent here is to RESOLVE conflicts so ALL people here
including you and me AGREE on what is true and consistent!

So this "lying" business is the exact OPPOSITE of my intent.

B. I am willing to correct whatever came across wrong as lying
because anything false or inconsistent is the opposite of my intent.
Sorry this wasn't clear, to the point where you question
if not attack the integrity of my intent when I have done
nothing but DEFEND yours when others attacked you.
Now I question your integrity if you go so far as to question mine
when I did nothing but defend you. WTF?

C. M.D. Rawlings I think you must have forgiveness issues
to project this wildly off base as to accuse me of lying?

Usually only people who are "lying to themselves"
would EVER accuse me of such a thing. But I don't think
that applies toyou, I think your problem is you don't
trust or forgive people so you are projecting onto them as you just did to me.

My guess is you have just implicated yourself as being
in denial about something, I"m not sure what.

If you are not willing to resolve all issues, that is your projection,
your defensiveness because of some unresolved issue on your side of the fence.

I AM WILLING to resolve the points where you find fault with me.

Please clarify where I miscommunicated so badly as to
be attacked by you as "lying" and I am willing to correct my faults.

Sorry I cannot say that about you.
I saw that you made efforts to make amends with Boss when you went a big overboard,
but to accuse me of lying is WAY beyond that.

So I am puzzled where the [heck] that came from.
I really do not understand that, so please enlighten me by clarifying.

I would like to resolve the issues because I have absolutely
NOTHING to gain by lying here, but am trying to get to the truth
behind each person's position so we can reconcile given our differences that won't change.

The only way this process works is by complete TRANSPARENCY
so how the heck I came across as lying is completely baffling to me.

Please explain and I am glad to correct the errors that caused
this misperception and misunderstanding of my intent!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Copy.paste. robot.

No one cares.

The opinion of liars, hypocrites, morons don't matter, little girl. Grow up! Real men don't care about the opinions of liars, hypocrites and morons.



Tell me something, little girl, was it all about kissy kissy ass with you in high school too? The lowest common denominator, to go along to get along? You smell like one those characters in teen flicks, like, you know and gag me with a spoon. Were you a valley girl? LOL!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What lies are you talking about?

I'm talking about Gödel for starters. Did I stutter?

This is what you wrote: "GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."

Gödel never asserted any such thing about God. Never! Ever! Show me a link/citation for this nonsense.

You cannot be talking about anything but Gödel's incompleteness theorems regarding the natural numbers, not God's existence!

G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Gödel's incompleteness theorems demonstrate that, like in physics, we lack a unified theory for the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity. That's all. In fact, Gödel holds as do many others that the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity is compelling evidence for the necessity of God's existence! Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not undermine the idea of God or throw the question into doubt at all! Where are you getting this nonsense? The various sets of the natural numbers hold true within their individual paradigms! But the problem is that we don't have a universal theory that proves them to be true outside the proofs of the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity.

The implications correlate with the understanding that while we can comprehend the construct of infinity as such and can cipher the contents and the proofs for the various sets of the natural numbers within their individual paradigms, we cannot comprehend or contain what the entirety of infinity would entail in terms of its limitless potentialities. How could we? We would have to God to comprehend the latter. We can't get outside or above our human perspective of things!


Gödel's proof for God's existence holds!
G del s ontological proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Kurt G del s Ontological Argument
Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE

What in the world do you guys think you agree on? Gödel never asserted that "God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds." Gödel proved God's existence in model logic! The inability to fathom the depths and heights of God has nothing to do with the proof of God's existence in and of itself! By definition, of course we can't grasp the entirety of divine infinity. We're not God.

Moreover, Justin is talking about the metaphysics of materialism. He is right. It cannot be scientifically verified.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Emily writes:

[1] Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.

[2] GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.​

Dear Lord! Gödel is regarded by many to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle! He is famous for his ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic and for his mathematically revolutionary incompleteness theorems and for the transcendental implications thereof!

The first statement is confused. The cosmological order and its constituents are the evidence for God's existence. Period. The strictly empirical proof for God's existence (the Teleological) holds as an inductive argument of probability, just like any other inductive argument. The other proofs are essentially deductive, premised on the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. That proof is incontrovertible.

The second statement is totally false and irresponsible. Gödel's ontological proof in modal logic proves God's existence. He never in his life asserted any such thing as you claim. And the ramifications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems support God's existence, for crying out loud! The latter do not undermine it at all! But, ultimately, the latter do not pertain to the existence of God one way or the other, directly, except in the sense that the incompleteness theorems prove that only an infinitely transcendent mind could comprehend or contain the entirety of a unifying principle for all logical/mathematical truth. But then we've always intuitively known this to be true in terms of transcendence. Now we have a discrete, rational proof for that.

Theoretically, we know that a unified theory for physics is possible because the cosmological order, as least in terms of its material nature, is finite, though it may not necessarily be spatially finite.

Until Gödel, we believed it was theoretically possible to achieve a unified theory for the various numerical systems of the infinite number line that would universally hold true for all numbers. In fact, we thought that we had such a thing at one point . . . at least insofar as the whole numbers were concerned as we worked on ones for the others. It never occurred to us that this quest actually involved a comprehensively descriptive-level perspective.

Then Gödel came along and shattered our illusion. It can't be done, and what is obvious to us today with our 20-20 vision, we apprehend that we should have realized this in terms of numerical systems from the jump because they are of a purely immaterial/rational nature.

We just hadn't made the connection between the numerical construct of infinity and the transcendental construct of infinity before.

GODEL S THEOREMS AND TRUTH

 

[emilynghiem]

What lies are you talking about?

I'm talking about Gödel for starters. Did I stutter?

This is what you wrote: "GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."

Gödel never asserted any such thing about God. Never! Ever! Show me a link/citation for this nonsense.

You cannot be talking about anything but Gödel's incompleteness theorems regarding the natural numbers, not God's existence!

G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Gödel's incompleteness theorems demonstrate that, like in physics, we lack a unified theory for the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity. That's all. In fact, Gödel holds as do many others that the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity is compelling evidence for the necessity of God's existence! Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not undermine the idea of God or throw the question into doubt at all! Where are you getting this nonsense? The various sets of the natural numbers hold true within there individual paradigms! But the problem is that we don't have a universal theory that proves them to be true outside the proofs of the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity.

The implications correlate with the understanding that while we can comprehend the construct of infinity as such and can cipher the contents and the proofs for the various sets of the natural numbers within there individual paradigms, we cannot comprehend or contain what the entirety of infinity would entail in terms of its limitless potentialities. How could we? We would have to God to comprehend the latter. We can't get outside or above our human perspective of things!


Gödel's proof for God's existence holds!
G del s ontological proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Kurt G del s Ontological Argument
Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE

What in the world do you guys think you agree on? Gödel has never asserted that "God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds." Gödel proved God's existence in model logic! The inability to fathom the depths and heights of God has nothing to do with the proof of God's existence in and of itself! By definition, of course we can't grasp the entirety of divine infinity. We're not God.

Moreover, Justin is talking about the metaphysics of materialism. He is right. It cannot be scientifically verified.

Hi MD thanks for explaining.
A. It seems you are taking Godel literally while I was going with this more liberal interpretation applying to a larger context.

If you disagree with this interpretation we can drop it and just stick to the literal Godel to prevent conflict
and false accusations of my as lying which were completely unfounded. I am sorry you do not feel you owe any such apology, but expect other people to apologize to you if they were to do the same.

You do not seem to practice the tenets of Christianity but expect people to give you credit and respect
though you show none of the same for others unless backed into it as you did for Boss. Very problematic
and I don't think it is fair at all to blame others for rejecting you when you come across as so false and unjust.

Here is the broader interpretation I was using it for:
With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).
Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle

I happen to like how this writer explained this very briefly.

If you prefer YOUR way of saying it, you ALSO referred to
1. God as the source of knowledge
2. science cannot prove anything but is verifying or falsifying

So if you do not agree with using Godel to say these same things,
but only want YOUR way, that is fine. but that is not fair to accuse me of lying
when I am actually defending your points but trying to explain them in different ways or contexts.

B. Without Godel I can still make the same arguments:
Since humans are finite in our perception, knowledge, understanding
and language/ability to communicate
we can never fully express much less prove the whole of God.

We can represent God, and agree what we mean.

I don't need Godel to express that, and sorry if this offended you somehow.

I wish you would take the time to apologize when you offend people.
I had no intent of lying or saying anything offensive,
and you do this constantly, accusing me and also insulting other people here.

And you have yet to acknowledge or apologize.
What does that say about you, and how can you wonder
why people reject theists like you who come across as arrogant assholes?

 

[emilynghiem]

The opinion of liars, hypocrites, morons don't matter, little girl. Grow up! Real men don't care about the opinions of liars, hypocrites and morons.

Tell me something, little girl, was it all about kissy kissy ass with you in high school too? The lowest common denominator, to go along to get along? You smell like one those characters in teen flicks, like, you know and gag me with a spoon. Were you a valley girl? LOL!

^^^^ WHAT THE FFFF IS THIS? ^^^

Are you trolling or what?

Why would you post such unfounded remarks out of nowhere trying to attack me personally
and expect to be taken seriously for your TAG arguments, really?

I take mediation and consensus building very seriously.

Why are you attacking me for this?
If you are a fellow Christian believer as you claim,
I rebuke you and ask that you and I resolve whatever issue you have from the past
you are projecting here on me. This is unbelievable coming from a fellow believer.

Where did this come from and where do you expect it to lead?

Are you seeking to reconcile in the spirit of truth, or what are you trying
to accomplish by attacking me this way? M.D.? Are you there
or did someone else hijack your computer or your brain and fart this out?

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily writes:

[1] Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.

[2] GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.​

Dear Lord! Gödel is regarded by many to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle! He is famous for his ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic and for his mathematically revolutionary incompleteness theorems and for the transcendental implications thereof!

The first statement is confused. The cosmological order and its constituents are the evidence for God's existence. Period. The strictly empirical proof for God's existence (the Teleological) holds as an inductive argument of probability, just like any other inductive argument. The other proofs are essentially deductive, premised on the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. That proof is incontrovertible.

The second statement is totally false and irresponsible. Gödel's ontological proof in modal logic proves God's existence. He never in his life asserted any such thing as you claim. And the ramifications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems support God's existence, for crying out loud! The latter do not undermine it at all! But, ultimately, the latter do not pertain to the existence of God one way or the other, directly, except in the sense that the incompleteness theorems prove that only an infinitely transcendent mind could comprehend or contain the entirety of a unifying principle for all logical/mathematical truth. But then we've always intuitively known this to be true in terms of transcendence. Now we have a discrete, rational proof for that.

Theoretically, we know that a unified theory for physics is possible because the cosmological order, as least in terms of its material nature, is finite, though it may not necessarily be spatially finite.

Until Gödel, we believed it was theoretically possible to achieve a unified theory for the various numerical systems of the infinite number line that would universally hold true for all numbers. In fact, we thought that we had such a thing at one point . . . at least insofar as the whole numbers were concerned as we worked on ones for the others. It never occurred to us that this quest actually involved a comprehensively descriptive-level perspective.

Then Gödel came along and shattered our illusion. It can't be done, and what is obvious to us today with our 20-20 vision, we apprehend that we should have realized this in terms of numerical systems from the jump because they are of a purely immaterial/rational nature.

We just hadn't made the connection between the numerical construct of infinity and the transcendental construct of infinity before.

GODEL S THEOREMS AND TRUTH

Hi M.D. Rawlings
Please see msg above this one where I agree we can drop the
interpretation of Godel you reject.

On that note, did you see my post where I listed several links to
math proofs of Godel's modal approach using computers to run the calculations:
Scientists Prove God Exists Austrian Researchers Use Advanced Math Based Modal Logic

M.D. if you AGREE that Godel's approach already proves God
then why are you using TAG?

If we agree with Godel, why not just promote that?

BTW
1. My point still stands that, in the same way you pointed out
science does not PROVE but just verifies and falsifies,
this is what I mean by man's knowledge is finite

Since God represents things on an infinite level beyond that,
that is what I mean. We can agree how to represent God
as you do with TAG, but this remains faith based
from the perspective of those who want to use Science.

2. I still hold that forgiveness and healing of mind/body and relationships
is the key to establishing the proof, understanding and/or consensus on God

3. I note that it is ironic that so many Christians and theists like you
cannot forgive others and fail to practice the very Christianity being pushed,
and thus end up teaching forgiveness indirectly
because so many people have to learn patience and forgiveness
to deal with people like you who come across as hypocrite assholes,
blaming others for the very faults you commit yourself in attacking and insulting others without apologizing.

I wish all people would teach by setting better examples of
the very faith and principles claimed to be the right way,
but apparently if this is the way you operate
you teach forgiveness by people having to forgive you for your faults.

I think that is a terrible way to teach Christianity
by forcing people to forgive instead of attacking you back
the way you harass and abuse others. What a backwards
way to teach people to be the bigger person. Whatever!

 

[Boss]

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

Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.

I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
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.

mdr: 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.

that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -

it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.

the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.

Thou doth project too much methinks?

M.D. where do you get off accusing people of being "liars"
when conflicts arise between people. That doesn't mean people are trying to LIE.

The fact that Hollie and GT are still here trying to establish some sense
speaks volumes that they care about the truth and are trying to make
and defend points in good faith! Why do you not see this in your fellow peers?

Are you trying to resolve issues to establish truth between people here?
Or you" giving up and chasing away" your audience by attacking and insulting people?
What is your motive for saying things like this that aren't helping anything?

Did Godel or anyone ever succeed by attacking and insulting people?
If you so believe the proof speaks for itself, where is this "need" coming from to
personally attack and insult others?

Where is that coming from and what purpose do you expect it to serve for your proof?
I don't understand this about you, please explain.
Your arguments and details you go into seem to be consistent with
trying to work things out logically, and then out of the blue these attacks come out that have nothing to
do with anything and aren't helping but hurting the ability to connect and communicate. Why???

 

[Boss]

By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.

It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your Seven Things argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.

Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your Seven Things argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.

No. Boss. It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything. It's a bad position to take. You're making a very serious error. This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers. God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from #3, #4 and #6 of The Seven Things.

To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism. There are no truths. None! All is chaos. Everything is an illusion, a lie. It's the same things as saying that God does not exist. You simply do not grasp the implications. God theologized us. It's not the other way around. That is the only thing that is rational.

It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy too! He just makes things up constantly!

Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.

I don't know where you are getting "To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God..." I never said that or implied that in anything I stated. Now, maybe the reason you think something I've said is "bonkers" is because you're not comprehending what I've said?

God theologized us. It's not the other way around. That is the only thing that is rational.

It can be what you believe is rational, but it's not the only thing that is rational. If God is perfect and God theologized us, it would have been perfectly. As we have an intrinsic awareness of spirit, we would also have an intrinsic awareness of theology, and there would be no need for religion. Theology is the theocratic man-made beliefs which stem from our spirituality.

God created logic just as God created every aspect of our reality and universe. And the laws/principles of logic do not apply to God. Being omnipotent, God can suspend logic at any time and make the illogical happen. Nothing trumps omnipotence.

 

[emilynghiem]

the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
.

Dear BreezeWood:
I agree there is something amiss or missing from MD's overall approach.
Both Boss and MD do allow their personal egos or issues to color what and how they say some things.

Given where you are coming from regarding the Almighty
how would you describe or define the Almighty
to follow the same basic steps or pattern that MD is using with TAG.

1. defining or agreeing God or the Almighty is ________________
2. so any other statement or notion about God or the Almighty
runs into a contradiction by conflicting with #1

Aren't you basically following this when you
point out that Boss and M.D. definition or approach to God
is lacking and conflicting in some ways?

Because it is running contrary to the Almighty as you point out?
So BreezeWood how would you set up the same TAG steps
to make your above argument about Boss and MD running into conflicts.

Is this close:
1. The Almighty is ______________
2. Any lesser or limited definition or approach to God
is going to be biased by someone's personal ego or "idolatry"
in representing God in a way that suits them and is not fully the Almighty in #1
3 . So this lesser approach is going to run into conflicts.

So BreezeWood if MD's TAG approach was adapted in some way as the above sample,
can't this be used to make the very statement you just pointed out
that some idolatry was biasing the views of God and making this conflict with
how the Almighty is consistently defined or represented by nature?

 

[Boss]

Did Godel or anyone ever succeed by attacking and insulting people?
If you so believe the proof speaks for itself, where is this "need" coming from to
personally attack and insult others?

Where is that coming from and what purpose do you expect it to serve for your proof?
I don't understand this about you, please explain.
Your arguments and details you go into seem to be consistent with
trying to work things out logically, and then out of the blue these attacks come out that have nothing to
do with anything and aren't helping but hurting the ability to connect and communicate. Why???

AMEN EMILY!

I'm not sure what the problem is with either Rawlings or Justin, they seem to be the same person. Teaming up to simply reject all other views but their own, and refusing to even accept the views of people who believe in God like they do. They remind me of Jehova's Witness people. Except JWs don't rudely insult and denigrate like they do.

 

[Hollie]

By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.

It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your Seven Things argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.

Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your Seven Things argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.

No. Boss. It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything. It's a bad position to take. You're making a very serious error. This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers. God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from #3, #4 and #6 of The Seven Things.

To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism. There are no truths. None! All is chaos. Everything is an illusion, a lie. It's the same things as saying that God does not exist. You simply do not grasp the implications. God theologized us. It's not the other way around. That is the only thing that is rational.

It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy too! He just makes things up constantly!

Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.

I don't know where you are getting "To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God..." I never said that or implied that in anything I stated. Now, maybe the reason you think something I've said is "bonkers" is because you're not comprehending what I've said?

God theologized us. It's not the other way around. That is the only thing that is rational.

It can be what you believe is rational, but it's not the only thing that is rational. If God is perfect and God theologized us, it would have been perfectly. As we have an intrinsic awareness of spirit, we would also have an intrinsic awareness of theology, and there would be no need for religion. Theology is the theocratic man-made beliefs which stem from our spirituality.

God created logic just as God created every aspect of our reality and universe. And the laws/principles of logic do not apply to God. Being omnipotent, God can suspend logic at any time and make the illogical happen. Nothing trumps omnipotence.

Everything trumps your failed "... because I say so" arguments.

What hasn't gone unnoticed is your inability to support a single element of your various claims to magical gawds and supernatural realms.

 

[G.T.]

Copy.paste. robot.

No one cares.

The opinion of liars, hypocrites, morons don't matter, little girl. Grow up! Real men don't care about the opinions of liars, hypocrites and morons.



Tell me something, little girl, was it all about kissy kissy ass with you in high school too? The lowest common denominator, to go along to get along? You smell like one those characters in teen flicks, like, you know and gag me with a spoon. Were you a valley girl? LOL!

This level of anger has me dying laughing for some reason.

I see you broke character from typing like a phony 1600's philosopher using language nobody really uses(& unsuccessfully, to boot) to now typing like a nut-bag middle school bully. Freudian slip?

Look, I never would have been any less than respectful to you nor your alter more angry ego Justin had y'all not flung the first insults but guess what? You're too socially awkward to control yourself and so you get what you deserve.

And back on topic, accusing you TAG proponents of redefining what an axiom is is not 'lying.' Its holding your feet to the fire.

 

[Boss]

By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.

It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your Seven Things argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.

Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your Seven Things argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.

No. Boss. It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything. It's a bad position to take. You're making a very serious error. This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers. God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from #3, #4 and #6 of The Seven Things.

To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism. There are no truths. None! All is chaos. Everything is an illusion, a lie. It's the same things as saying that God does not exist. You simply do not grasp the implications. God theologized us. It's not the other way around. That is the only thing that is rational.

It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy too! He just makes things up constantly!

Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.

I don't know where you are getting "To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God..." I never said that or implied that in anything I stated. Now, maybe the reason you think something I've said is "bonkers" is because you're not comprehending what I've said?

God theologized us. It's not the other way around. That is the only thing that is rational.

It can be what you believe is rational, but it's not the only thing that is rational. If God is perfect and God theologized us, it would have been perfectly. As we have an intrinsic awareness of spirit, we would also have an intrinsic awareness of theology, and there would be no need for religion. Theology is the theocratic man-made beliefs which stem from our spirituality.

God created logic just as God created every aspect of our reality and universe. And the laws/principles of logic do not apply to God. Being omnipotent, God can suspend logic at any time and make the illogical happen. Nothing trumps omnipotence.

Everything trumps your failed "... because I say so" arguments.

What hasn't gone unnoticed is your inability to support a single element of your various claims to magical gawds and supernatural realms.

Shut up, troll bitch.

 

[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.

mdr: 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.

that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -

it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.

the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.

.

The simple, yet deeply profound truths of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, the common sense obviously given to you by God that you may know that He exists and what He is like is of no significance to you because you have no faith to believe in anything of any value but yourself. Your god is yourself. You have no faith or confidence in God at all. You don't believe what God has been telling you about Himself all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.

God's "voice" is the commonsensical logic in your mind. As you don't even have enough faith to believe the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you. You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless. You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.

Ultimately, faith is the common sense to believe the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself. God has already proven His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you believe Him or will even take the time to listen to Him because you have no faith or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.

What you lack is faith in God, and because you lack faith in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.

You are the idolater. The only testimony you believe is your own. The only thing you believe in is yourself. The only thing you worship is yourself.

That's the real truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

 

[amrchaos]

the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
.

Dear BreezeWood:
I agree there is something amiss or missing from MD's overall approach.
Both Boss and MD do allow their personal egos or issues to color what and how they say some things.

Given where you are coming from regarding the Almighty
how would you describe or define the Almighty
to follow the same basic steps or pattern that MD is using with TAG.

1. defining or agreeing God or the Almighty is ________________
2. so any other statement or notion about God or the Almighty
runs into a contradiction by conflicting with #1

Aren't you basically following this when you
point out that Boss and M.D. definition or approach to God
is lacking and conflicting in some ways?

Because it is running contrary to the Almighty as you point out?
So BreezeWood how would you set up the same TAG steps
to make your above argument about Boss and MD running into conflicts.

Is this close:
1. The Almighty is ______________
2. Any lesser or limited definition or approach to God
is going to be biased by someone's personal ego or "idolatry"
in representing God in a way that suits them and is not fully the Almighty in #1
3 . So this lesser approach is going to run into conflicts.

So BreezeWood if MD's TAG approach was adapted in some way as the above sample,
can't this be used to make the very statement you just pointed out
that some idolatry was biasing the views of God and making this conflict with
how the Almighty is consistently defined or represented by nature?

Emily
You know, you are right there when you made these statements


"1. defining or agreeing God or the Almighty is ________________
2. so any other statement or notion about God or the Almighty
runs into a contradiction by conflicting with #1"

I think that is the main source of problems in this discussion. #1 is not being agreed upon. Posters are mistakenly imposing notion's of what God is upon other posters and that tends to create "strawmen arguments". We should endeavor to avoid that by asking for clarity(if clarity is possible!)

I wouldn't talk about "personal ego's" or "idoltry" because those terms carries a negative connotation and besides, who to say someones objection to what God is(from 1) is not verifiably true?

So, to ease conflicts--There has to exist some clear hypothetical concept of what God actually is before one can talk about God.