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

[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.

Shut up, troll bitch.

Oh my. Is that what jeebus would do?

 

[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

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.

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

 

[Justin Davis]

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!

What a load of baloney.

 

[Justin Davis]

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???

More baloney.

 

[emilynghiem]

.
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.

Dear M.D. Thanks for backing off the personal attacks
and sticking to spelling out the content of your objections and responses.

However, here with BreezeWood I think this is definitely projection.

BW keeps objecting to LIMITING the notion of God to something we perceive and
represent for our own convenience and interests.

BW keeps pointing out that the Almighty is greater than what we perceive.

So BW is trying to be more SELFLESS and IMPERSONAL about it,
instead of people PROJECTING our own self-image on God which comes across as idolatrous!

I don't think what you've said here applies to BW,
but actually explains BW's very objections, where you actually agree something is amiss.

I think the problem both you and BW have is inability or unwillingness to
FORGIVE the fact that people approach or frame God/the Almighty differently.

So you both accuse the other of projecting idolatrous images of God.

You both seem to be saying similar, that these projections run into conflicts or contradictions.

Since both you and BW are essentially arguing similar,
the only reason you do not AGREE with each other is you do not forgive each other's ways of saying the SAME THING!

You don't trust each other's way of presenting, and feel the other person is flawed
and not acknowledging their own bias. Your issue is with each other.

 

[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???

More baloney.

How is that baloney? Please explain specifically
where I say anything false, unfair or contradictory/inconsistent
and I will gladly make corrections!

But just saying something is baloney doesn't give me anything to go on.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

OK
so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
IS God

this is what I was saying that
God = Creator and God = Creation
are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God

These are not necessarily contradictory!

We agree more than we disagree.

At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.

It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.

 

[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

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.

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

OK
so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
IS God

this is what I was saying that
God = Creator and God = Creation
are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God

These are not necessarily contradictory!

We agree more than we disagree.

At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.

It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.

Baloney. I'm not going to waste my time repeating what Rawlings already proved. Find the post for yourself or maybe he'll repost it for you. He titled it something like "what’s wrong with Boss’ idea?" What’s wrong with it is that it would mean that truth is relative, so nothing you or anyone says is true, so why say anything at all? How silly is that?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Boss:
1. to Justin's credit he did point out where MD was losing him on some of the definitions or logic that wasn't consistently used.
so he does try to correct some points with MD and isn't blindly following by any means
2. If you look at Justin's last msg I responded to,
he was objecting to "God creating logic" because he was equating God WITH the logic that naturally exists.
So this is like how people object to God as Creator because God is the entire Creation itself.

There really is no sense in trying to pick that apart as conflicting
when those two positions can be used harmoniously. It is OK either way,
to combine God with the Creation as one body and not argue over a starting point or source,
as it is OK to say God and the logic are one, and not separate where God created the logic.

We can still talk about God's laws or truth as self-existent and focus on the CONTENT of the laws and logic therein.
So I see no need to argue about that separation; some people distinguish
and personify God as Creator and some blend God in with the Laws of the Universe as one and don't distinguish or separate.

3. About rudely insulting and denigrating,
just make sure not to fall into the same traps.
And maybe we can steer the group as a whole away from the personal attack business
which isn't helping focus on the content but detracting and discrediting.

Please see reply to your remarks about Hollie I felt were
equally out of line, so if M.D. and Justin are going to be called out on those attacks,
it is only fair to be consistent and refrain from all such remarks that are denigrating.

Thanks, Boss!
I'm glad we can see where each other is coming from
and focus on the content where we agree, while working out the rest as we go.
If we stand on points of agreement, it is much easier to correct places of conflict.
But if we swing at each other using points of conflict to attack,
we knock each other off the bridge and can't get anywhere that way.
I'd much rather build and stabilize the bridges between us first,
so at least we have a stable frame to work with and map out the rest from there.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

OK
so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
IS God

this is what I was saying that
God = Creator and God = Creation
are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God

These are not necessarily contradictory!

We agree more than we disagree.

At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.

It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.

Baloney. I'm not going to waste my time repeating what Rawlings already proved. Find the post for yourself or maybe he'll repost it for you. He titled it something like "what’s wrong with Boss’ idea?" What’s wrong with it is that it would mean that truth is relative, so nothing you or anyone says is true, so why say anything at all? How silly is that?

Hi Justin
The Beauty about human experience and expression being relative
is that the PATTERNS still align and show universality in source.

So even though one person uses the Christian trinity,
and another person the Buddhist Three Refuges,
Constitutionalists divide the spectrum as judicial, legislative and executive
and Taoists/Psychologists focus on Mind/Body/Spirit,
Human Nature is still universal, even though we express the laws differently
per person or context.

Isn't that beautiful?

To see there is one source, one universal law motivating all human experience,
but it's okay to express it differently and it's still pointing to the same absolutes!

We can have absolute concrete agreement on universal truths
and we can include diverse expression, unique to each person, at the same time.

Is that not proof that people can be one with God's laws?
That even where we have completely different expressions,
they all follow the same patterns because Human Nature is designed consistently?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

^ Here, Boss, this is the msg where I felt this was unnecessarily denigrating.
To be fair to all people here, I hope we can agree to refrain from personal attacks and stick to content.

As for Hollie, if you can imagine having no concept at all that anything
about God or Jesus is true or has anything valid or positive to offer,
but religion is all part of some mass manipulation to take advantage of
people who want to belong to a group or to follow some leader,
wouldn't you be frustrated and feeling "everyone else is in denial"
and refusing to admit that this is all BS.

I don't think I would be as civil as Hollie and GT are being here!
I would be outraged if I thought people were continuing to deny and spread
lies for some selfish motive that is abused to harm people. I would not be so polite!

Please consider the source.

Given that GT and Hollie have seen absolutely ZERO proof that there is
anything true, valid or positive about Christianity and belief in God or Jesus,
they are both being as gracious and tolerant as they can trying to even
discuss this with people they think are completely selfish and full of ****.

I can understand their outrage and frustration
before I can understand why Justin and MD talk trash
if they claim to have faith. If they understand God is good
why is there any need to be negative?

GT and Hollie do not claim to be Christian and forgiving,
so given that they have made no such commitment,
they look pretty tolerant and forbearing
compared with Justin and M.D. who seem to
fall short of Christian values they claim to defend.

I hope we can correct that, and can learn from it
why Christianity teaches to forgive 77 times 77,
even if the same flaws or faults recur again, we
are to again forgive them over and over if we are going to break
out of these negative patterns keeping us stuck.
Only through forgiveness can we be freed from it.
So maybe this whole discussion involves a lesson in the
importance of forgiving one another if we are going to get to the truth.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

OK
so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
IS God

this is what I was saying that
God = Creator and God = Creation
are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God

These are not necessarily contradictory!

We agree more than we disagree.

At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.

It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.

Baloney. I'm not going to waste my time repeating what Rawlings already proved. Find the post for yourself or maybe he'll repost it for you. He titled it something like "what’s wrong with Boss’ idea?" What’s wrong with it is that it would mean that truth is relative, so nothing you or anyone says is true, so why say anything at all? How silly is that?

Hi Justin
The Beauty about human experience and expression being relative
is that the PATTERNS still align and show universality in source.

So even though one person uses the Christian trinity,
and another person the Buddhist Three Refuges,
Constitutionalists divide the spectrum as judicial, legislative and executive
and Taoists/Psychologists focus on Mind/Body/Spirit,
Human Nature is still universal, even though we express the laws differently
per person or context.

Isn't that beautiful?

To see there is one source, one universal law motivating all human experience,
but it's okay to express it differently and it's still pointing to the same absolutes!

We can have absolute concrete agreement on universal truths
and we can include diverse expression, unique to each person, at the same time.

Is that not proof that people can be one with God's laws?
That even where we have completely different expressions,
they all follow the same patterns because Human Nature is designed consistently?

No it doesn't. It's utter baloney that leads nowhere. It's circular reasoning that negates itself.

 

[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.

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.

Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.

 

[Boss]

Here, Boss, this is the msg where I felt this was unnecessarily denigrating.
To be fair to all people here, I hope we can agree to refrain from personal attacks and stick to content.

Sorry Emily, when someone is going to be a troll and a bitch, I am going to call them that.

 

[Justin Davis]

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.

Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.

Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men? Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?

I said this: "God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation."

You imply I said this: "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."

Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?

Here's your argument: "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.

Sorry but that doesn't work.
.

 

[Justin Davis]

Hey MD

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

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

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

OK

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I'm gong to start calling him Sillypsismchaos. What kind of persons but silly people like that guy in the video say that axioms are informal fallacies or that the TAG says that logic is created? The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created. What an idiot. The writers of the Bible and Kant begged the question and believe logic is created. Things that have stood the test of time for centuries can suddenly be tossed out by the straw men of idiots.,

Well, I don't want to get too personal with this, but I'm not giving any more serious thought to the posts of that dingbat until he starts acknowledging that his drivel has already been addressed. How many times does it take?

I think he's got a real thing for solipsism. There might be something sexual going on there, some kind of fetish.

I already told him I qualified The Seven Things from the beginning with regard to these kinds of philosophical objections and why #1 and #2 are expressed as empirical facts. Right. As if most people do not regard them to be empirical facts, as if there's anything stopping this dingbat from intellectually modifying them in his mind, as if such a modification makes any difference to the central construct and the ramifications thereof, as if they were not primarily of an a priori nature or as if every damn thing that is strictly empirical or inductive in nature had to pass muster with him, when the only legitimately pragmatic, universal standard for logic and science and for people of common sense is justified true belief/knowledge.

This punk is calling me a troll?!

So let him make #1 and #2 I and a purely rational impression, for crying out loud! Whose holding a gun to his head? So where did this I he keeps going on about come from? A trash can? His toilet bowl? His dog's last bowel movement? Oh, wait! No! Those things would be empirical, and of course all syllogisms are necessarily instances of inductive reasoning if there's something empirical in them.

Not.

Maybe God slipped him a mickey or maybe he slipped a mickey to himself.

"I think he's got a real thing for solipsism. There might be something sexual going on there, some kind of fetish."

I don't care who you are that's funny.

 

[the_human_being]

.
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 ?

.

I

OK

I had too put both those characters on ignore. I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.

Yeah. I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you. Check?

I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir! Check?

And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .

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

Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing? Good. Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.

Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head. I see what you mean now about atheists now. I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage. Now they run like girls.

Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

On the Prescriptive-Descriptive dichotomy: Posts #4129, #4132 and #4139

The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things. GT, you don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy correlates with the Is-Ought dichotomy as ultimately premised on the subject-object dichotomy. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions of human cognition on the basis of the rational-empirical dichotomy if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.

The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Now that is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is not an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only! And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.

And I find it hilarious that Amrchaos is throwing the term troll at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that Amrchaos nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.

I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:

The intrinsically organic principle of identity cannot be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it is the intrinsically indispensable organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the prescriptive and the descriptive levels of apprehension.​

Further, the idea of God in and of itself is a fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only—in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct—for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a valid, might or might not be true value, not merely a might or might not be true value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility.

In science it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent.

Any questions?

 

[Boss]

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.

Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.

Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men? Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?

I said this: "God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation."

You imply I said this: "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."

Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?

Here's your argument: "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.

Sorry but that doesn't work.
.

God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.

God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.

Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.

 

[Hollie]

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.

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.

Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.

Umm, no. Gawds are irrational inventions of humans. Logical thinking is a process independent of your gawds or anyone else's gawds.