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

[emilynghiem]

God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!

Someone had to create divine forgiveness
or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)

And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
And MD and Justin for either being the same person
or being two different people, whichever is worse!

love of creation, love of truth and justice
has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.

Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.

 

[emilynghiem]

God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
God IS... "I AM!"

And what Justin and M.D. are saying is that they places the Logic of God
as part of God's identity inseparable from God,
so where God doesn't require creation neither does God's Logic.

Boss there is no need for conflict here.

Just because you and I Justin and MD draw the lines in different places
doesn't mean we're not talking about the same God!

There is no such thing as "God's Logic!" What that is doing is elevating Logic to the level of GOD!

Logic is a human-created word to describe our rational understanding of our universe and reality. GOD has no need for Logic whatsoever... GOD needs NOTHING!

Dear Boss:
I am more where you are coming from, that if
God is the source of laws, and logic is part of the laws,
then those came from God.

However, here is another source that takes the position like Justin takes
that Logic is self-existent on the level of God and not created by God:
Is God Subject to Logic Tough Questions Answered

I understand how this makes no sense to you if you come from the view
that if God created nature so all laws of the universe, science and logic come with creation.

the only difference, then, between you and me
is I am willing to forgive these differences
but you and MD. and maybe Justin struggle with that.

I am Okay that both these approaches are out there.
If people take this one or that one, I just need to know,
so I don't mispeak with that person.

I am okay either way. if that's how people set up and
understand where God, creation and logic lie, that's fine
as long as I know which way they are coming from
and they can deal with me!

 

[Boss]

Boss you said yourself "God didn't need creation" right? because God is self-existent.
So imagine that Logic already exists within God and is equally self-existent as is God.

The Logic was there, as an INHERENT part of God that didn't need creation,
before the Creation manifested.

Does that help?

No, it doesn't help. You are making logic equal to God and nothing is equal to God. Everything already exists within God because God is the source of all creation. So this is a nonsensical argument. Before the creation there is nothing for logic to apply to. What does logic mean if there is nothing? It only has functional meaning and significance when there is something to which it can apply. Logic is simply the parameter of mechanics functioning in our material universe, it has no other purpose and is not required by God. To argue otherwise is to argue that God is not omnipotent. You can certainly believe that, but I don't believe that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss you said yourself "God didn't need creation" right? because God is self-existent.
So imagine that Logic already exists within God and is equally self-existent as is God.

The Logic was there, as an INHERENT part of God that didn't need creation,
before the Creation manifested.

Does that help?

No, it doesn't help. You are making logic equal to God and nothing is equal to God. Everything already exists within God because God is the source of all creation. So this is a nonsensical argument. Before the creation there is nothing for logic to apply to. What does logic mean if there is nothing? It only has functional meaning and significance when there is something to which it can apply. Logic is simply the parameter of mechanics functioning in our material universe, it has no other purpose and is not required by God. To argue otherwise is to argue that God is not omnipotent. You can certainly believe that, but I don't believe that.

Boss did you see my last message above?
I said I align more with YOUR viewpoint, not Justin and MD.
But I looked online and found other people who believe that Logic is self-existent on the level of God.

So I accept that other people set it up that way.

Some people set up God = Creation itself with no beginning and no end,
that it was always in existence and didn't have a creation starting point.

So who am I to argue with that approach either?

Boss just because you and I disagree and don't set it up that way,
doesn't mean we can't work with Justin MD and people who do.

We just need to know that our bounds and definitions are different
so we don't keep tripping on that same snag. It's like having a cultural
accent, and learning to understand and communicate anyway. Even though
to the English person, the other person has a Spanish accent, and to the Spanish
person the other person has an English accent. So what, can't we just let
people say things the way that works for them and be okay with that?

of course we have our biases, I've run into many different takes.
Even BreezeWood does not agree this God is the same as the Almighty.
so why not align both of those as their understanding of God and not argue about them.

If we have different ways, we have different ways.
Justin's won't make as much sense to me because I relate more to yours.
And our way may not make sense to them either!

Does this have to be a point of conflict?
Can't we just work around this bias we have?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.

they are blending them together as one!

No Emily, that's not what is flying back in my face from them. The equivalent would be me saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and them responding.. "Nuh uh! Jesus IS God! You're irrational!" There is no "blending" there.

What they are both actually doing is making the case for the Atheists and Agnostics even better than they can do themselves. If believers in God can't even get on the same page, how the hell are they supposed to believe? What are they supposed to believe? We can't even settle it amongst ourselves and we believe!

To me, it is sad and unfortunate that MD made such a great argument with the 7 Things, and has now destroyed his own argument in order to criticize and contradict someone who believes in God. Either God is the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of ALL, or God isn't that.

It's a mutual process.

You may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.

once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?

There can be no mutual process of connection on the grounds of relativism. Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.

Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.

If that's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic or theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.

They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.

So they need to shut up!

This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!

They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.

Fine.

I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.

My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.

The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.

The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.

So how does he know that?

Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .

The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.

Shut up!

 

[sealybobo]

Boss, your argument is that God created everything (not God created everything apart from Himself); therefore, God created logic.

That does not follow!

When you are asked: "How do you know God created logic, Boss?"

You answer: "Because God created everything."

Nonresponsive!

God did not create everything, Boss, did He? That premise is not rational, is it? It's not sound, is it?

God created everything.
God is omnipotent.
God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
God IS... "I AM!"

What does not follow is the idea that God did not create everything, yet God is omnipotent.

That argument is not sound. That argument is not rational.
Furthermore, it's not even in accordance to the beliefs of mainstream Christianity.

As for "knowing" I've already said, we cannot "know" things, we can only believe we know things.
(*Except for you and Justin, who are apparently all-knowing individuals who know more than God, even though God is omniscient!)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

 

[emilynghiem]

2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.

they are blending them together as one!

No Emily, that's not what is flying back in my face from them. The equivalent would be me saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and them responding.. "Nuh uh! Jesus IS God! You're irrational!" There is no "blending" there.

What they are both actually doing is making the case for the Atheists and Agnostics even better than they can do themselves. If believers in God can't even get on the same page, how the hell are they supposed to believe? What are they supposed to believe? We can't even settle it amongst ourselves and we believe!

To me, it is sad and unfortunate that MD made such a great argument with the 7 Things, and has now destroyed his own argument in order to criticize and contradict someone who believes in God. Either God is the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of ALL, or God isn't that.

It's a mutual process.

You may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.

once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?

There can be no mutual process of connection on the grounds of relativism. Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.

Since, that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.

If this's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic or theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.

They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.

So they need to shut up!

This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!

That don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.

Fine.

I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.

My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.

The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.

The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.

So how does he know that?

Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .

The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.

Shut up!

Hi M.D.
if it weren't for my tolerance of relative views,
I would not be talking with you at all.

End of argument.
Keep talking, don't shut up, because I
accept your views as relative to you
even though they make no sense to others.

 

[sealybobo]

You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks

But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.

Same thing with the god.

We've been asking this question a long time.

Cosmogony is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings.

And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural. But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations? Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions. Those are all unbelievable lies. So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?

And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.

I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist. LOL.

Yea,

I only entertain these discussions for some intrigue, but I never really find it.

The only way to prove something to me is to reach a certain bar of objective evidence, which is to mean evidence not subjectively fanciful or a twisting of the English language to make a fallacious proof.

I think I'm reiterating, but besides my family and friends - the last things in life that could blow my intrigue like a kid in a candy store would be time travel and the knowledge of existence's origin. And, outlook not so good, so far.

I think you can transcend linear time and space
by prayer and meditation. People have connected
with previous or future generations spiritually on that level.

look up the story about Buckminster Fuller
he had a spiritual experience when he was about to kill himself by drowning himself in the ocean

he realized the purpose of life was to help others
and he started getting visions of the future, the
Bucky Ball/geodesic dome and other insights that changed the future.

so this is not unlike a spiritual experience of transcending time
and seeing into the future to start creating it in the present before it is realized later in time.

Two things, here.

#1. I've been heavily invested in trying to advance my meditations and lucid dreaming skills. Still not where I'd call myself affluent yet, but also not sure if anything aside from cognitive wiring / firing implications are there as opposed to anything deistic or "spiritual."

#2. Testimonies are lost on me, they're an ineffective way to communicate a phenomena that's already hard to believe EVEN when witnessing it, let alone taking a person's word for it. For me, personally, testimonials are time wasted. I mean, I can maybe pick up relevant information by accident while listening to them, but they don't 'prove' anything to me.

Every religious/spiritual person I know swears they saw an angel, ghost, demonic possession. Either that or they believe other people when they make the claim.

I'm not buying it either.

 

[Boss]

A little care here, Boss

"If God needs Nothing" will lead to the question
"Does God want something?"

Two problems are popping up

1)The question of why this God would create
2)The increase of characteristics in this notion of God

Right now, I'm at "I don't know" but continued qualities can give me something to latch unto even if this God is beyond logic.

Okay... IF GOD is omnipotent, it is not possible for God to want. IF God "wanted" it would simply BE! There would be no question of it, no doubt about it, no denying it. Period!

Why did God create? We can't comprehend this with human cognition. We can speculate, we can theorize using our perceptions of logic and reason, we can formulate opinions and beliefs... and that's what we do. But we can't know the answer to this question, we can only believe we know.

Now, all I can do is explain what I believe, and that is that we are inclined toward a spiritual purpose which transcends our physical selves. The nature of this is most apparent in our intrinsic understanding of "right and wrong" or "good and evil." What that purpose is exactly or what's beyond the physical, I have no idea. Perhaps another dimension of awareness? Perhaps something above awareness and knowledge as we comprehend them? I don't know, I can't answer that question.

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss, your argument is that God created everything (not God created everything apart from Himself); therefore, God created logic.

That does not follow!

When you are asked: "How do you know God created logic, Boss?"

You answer: "Because God created everything."

Nonresponsive!

God did not create everything, Boss, did He? That premise is not rational, is it? It's not sound, is it?

God created everything.
God is omnipotent.
God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
God IS... "I AM!"

What does not follow is the idea that God did not create everything, yet God is omnipotent.

That argument is not sound. That argument is not rational.
Furthermore, it's not even in accordance to the beliefs of mainstream Christianity.

As for "knowing" I've already said, we cannot "know" things, we can only believe we know things.
(*Except for you and Justin, who are apparently all-knowing individuals who know more than God, even though God is omniscient!)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

Hi Sealybobo
it's not that God is unwilling
it's that the process must follow the laws.

If God corrected every time someone died by shooting themselves in the foot with their own gun,
what motivation would we have not to shoot ourselves? God would magically fix it.

We have to quit smoking if we want to lower our chances of cancer.
If all cancer were magically cured, what motivation woudl peopel have to eat and live healthy?

This is common sense.

Need I go on?

What motivation would we have to avoid stepping on rusty nails
if there was not pain and infection telling us we harmed our bodies?

There are natural laws in place.

So when we follow them in harmony, we reap harmonious results.

When we violate the laws of harmony and do things out of whack,
then we get out of whack results.

Cause and effect.

Butterfly eggs produce larva that turn into Butterflies.
Elephant breed elephants.

God is not going to go against natural laws to magically do unnatural things.
What purpose would that serve?

 

[sealybobo]

Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.

Hey Boss & Emily. How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this? It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar. You think he's going to listen to you?

This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion. I can handle people like boss. It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.

Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons? Fine. Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.

 

[Boss]

God did not create logic!

THEN GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT!

 

[sealybobo]

The only "gap" appears to be between your ears, MD.

God created logic just as God created every parameter of our universe and reality... OR... God is not omnipotent and omniscient and is restricted by laws of logic which God didn't create. You can pick one or the other, you cannot pick both because both cannot be true at the same time.

Or there is no god. 3rd option.

 

[emilynghiem]

But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.

Same thing with the god.

We've been asking this question a long time.

Cosmogony is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings.

And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural. But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations? Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions. Those are all unbelievable lies. So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?

And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.

I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist. LOL.

Yea,

I only entertain these discussions for some intrigue, but I never really find it.

The only way to prove something to me is to reach a certain bar of objective evidence, which is to mean evidence not subjectively fanciful or a twisting of the English language to make a fallacious proof.

I think I'm reiterating, but besides my family and friends - the last things in life that could blow my intrigue like a kid in a candy store would be time travel and the knowledge of existence's origin. And, outlook not so good, so far.

I think you can transcend linear time and space
by prayer and meditation. People have connected
with previous or future generations spiritually on that level.

look up the story about Buckminster Fuller
he had a spiritual experience when he was about to kill himself by drowning himself in the ocean

he realized the purpose of life was to help others
and he started getting visions of the future, the
Bucky Ball/geodesic dome and other insights that changed the future.

so this is not unlike a spiritual experience of transcending time
and seeing into the future to start creating it in the present before it is realized later in time.

Two things, here.

#1. I've been heavily invested in trying to advance my meditations and lucid dreaming skills. Still not where I'd call myself affluent yet, but also not sure if anything aside from cognitive wiring / firing implications are there as opposed to anything deistic or "spiritual."

#2. Testimonies are lost on me, they're an ineffective way to communicate a phenomena that's already hard to believe EVEN when witnessing it, let alone taking a person's word for it. For me, personally, testimonials are time wasted. I mean, I can maybe pick up relevant information by accident while listening to them, but they don't 'prove' anything to me.

Every religious/spiritual person I know swears they saw an angel, ghost, demonic possession. Either that or they believe other people when they make the claim.

I'm not buying it either.

My friend Ray Hill is an atheist, does not believe in any personified Jesus or God,
and still teaches forgiveness and abundance of free grace, synonymous with Christianity.

He finds it is just pure common sense to avoid insanity by not driving yourself crazy keeping inventory
on yourself and other people.

So no, you do not need to believe in anything magical or supernatural
to believe in spiritual laws of Peace and Justice, charity and forgiveness.

 

[emilynghiem]

God did not create logic!

THEN GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT!

If God did not create God why is that okay and God is still omnipotent?

 

[emilynghiem]

The only "gap" appears to be between your ears, MD.

God created logic just as God created every parameter of our universe and reality... OR... God is not omnipotent and omniscient and is restricted by laws of logic which God didn't create. You can pick one or the other, you cannot pick both because both cannot be true at the same time.

Or there is no god. 3rd option.

or humans cannot define what God is without getting into contradictions
because people define God differently. that doesn't mean there is no God
just because people can't agree how to define it, or how to get along despite different representations.


The most amazing thing about these discussions is seeing who is able to forgive whom.
Sealyboby, you and GT are able to work with me and my views
but other Theists and Christians jump all over me for them.

So who is forgiving their neighbors as Jesus called us to love one another?

Sometimes the Good Samaritans practicing charity for neighbors
are not the people we expected to be so kind, and the people who
claim to promote Christianity don't seem very forgiving and leaving it to God to judge, right?

Very curious, most ironic sometimes!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.

Hey Boss & Emily. How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this? It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar. You think he's going to listen to you?

This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion. I can handle people like boss. It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.

Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons? Fine. Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.

You relativists are the nutjobs, nutjob!

Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths; therefore, the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths must be absolutely false!

Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

That's you nutjob, not I!

There can be no mutual process of connection on the grounds of relativism.

Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.

Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.

If that's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic or theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.

They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.

So they need to shut up!

This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!

They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.

Fine.

I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.

My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.

The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.

The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.

So how does he know that?

Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .

The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.

Shut up!

 

[emilynghiem]

Why did God create? We can't comprehend this with human cognition. We can speculate, we can theorize using our perceptions of logic and reason, we can formulate opinions and beliefs... and that's what we do. But we can't know the answer to this question, we can only believe we know.

Now, all I can do is explain what I believe, and that is that we are inclined toward a spiritual purpose which transcends our physical selves. The nature of this is most apparent in our intrinsic understanding of "right and wrong" or "good and evil." What that purpose is exactly or what's beyond the physical, I have no idea. Perhaps another dimension of awareness? Perhaps something above awareness and knowledge as we comprehend them? I don't know, I can't answer that question.

OK Boss let's try this.
Let's say God created all things.
And you are saying we cannot know WHY God created.

So if the "REASON God created" all things existed BEFORE he created all things,
isn't that REASON part of the LOGIC that existed with God BEFORE anything else was created?
Does that help?

 

[Boss]

IYou may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.

once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?

I can't get on the same page with them, they refuse to let me. Whenever I get on the page they are on, they switch to the page we're not on and demand I change pages with them, then they jump back to the page we were on and claim I am contradicting them. They are determined to not allow me to be on their page, regardless of how hard I try. Unless I want to idiotically trip and stumble between one page and the other with my head up MD's ass like a cult follower.

Sorry, not interested!

 

[G.T.]

Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.

Hey Boss & Emily. How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this? It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar. You think he's going to listen to you?

This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion. I can handle people like boss. It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.

Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons? Fine. Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.

You relativists are the nutjobs, nutjob!

Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths; therefore, the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths must be absolutely false!

Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

That's you nutjob, not I!

There can be no mutual process of connection on the grounds of relativism.

Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.

Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.

If that's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic or theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.

They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.

So they need to shut up!

This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!

They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.

Fine.

I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.

My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.

The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.

The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.

So how does he know that?

Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .

The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.

Shut up!

Stop screaming and having temper tantrums like a little toddler.