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

[emilynghiem]

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 not absolute truths; therefore, the absolute truth that there are not 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 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!

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!

Dear Justin: Can you please help me explain to MD?
I said there was a difference between Absolute truth and Relative EXPRESSIONS OR PERCEPTIONS of truth.

So these Relative truths are what humans use such as science and empirical experience.
Sealybobo has no experience with spiritual healing but my other friends do,
so their relative truths are different.

Can you please explain to MD this does not contradict absolute truths?

We can have both.

Two people can play on the same baseball team,
and the score is tied 3 to 3 -- absolutely.

But one person says the game was fair, because mistakes were made on both sides, and it came out even to them;
and the other person can say the game was unfair because X Y Z were unfair calls and one team should have won.

That's not a perfect example,
but I hope you get what I mean.

The score is absolutely unquestioned,
but the interpretation of whether the game was evenhanded or not is relative.
One person sees it one way and the other sees it another way,
and they are both right from their perspective.

 

[Boss]

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?

No, because now you are talking about something transcendental and out of our capacity to comprehend. Reason and logic are applied to a physical material universe in which we humans experience a reality. God has no purpose for these attributes because God is omnipotent.

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

Well, whatever it is that is preventing them from understanding
you and I
are NOT against them,
these two need to resolve that anyway
if they are going to be more effective and successful in the future.

It is for their own benefit as well, that they learn to resolve
what the issues are, and not make problems where they don't have to be any.

There is some nonsense going on here.
Not sure where the false accusations are coming from
but getting those out of the way
may clear the air to communicate on the real points of content.

Thanks for trying and I hope better insights come to us
as we let go. Maybe better ways will come along, if not
on this thread by other means, other doors will open up, too!

 

[sealybobo]

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!

I love it when two god believers argue.

 

[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?

No, because now you are talking about something transcendental and out of our capacity to comprehend. Reason and logic are applied to a physical material universe in which we humans experience a reality. God has no purpose for these attributes because God is omnipotent.

But you just said humans cannot know. We can believe but can't know.

How can you be "so sure" there is no logic for God's ways and means?

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

I love it when two god believers argue.

Hey no couple I know ever made peace by guessing, reading minds and not talking.

If you can see the difference in SPIRIT, when Boss and I are trying to hash things out
there is no namecalling, no accusing me of lying or accusing us of being the same person etc.

We trust each other to tell the truth and just aren't getting why isn't the conflict being addressed and resolved.
Nothing wrong with using words to try to work it out.

This is the good kind of hashing out that is productive

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

Dear M.D. Rawlings: From your above statements
I don't think my approach to "relative expressions"
is anything at all like what you mean by "relative truths"

For example
In Buddhism there are Three Refuges
Buddha Dharma and Sangha
In Confucianism there is
Jen Yi and Li
In Taoism and Psychology there is
Body Mind and Spirit

So the way i explain the meaning of the Trinity
is that it is the collective fulfillment of all three of these levels in spiritual harmony and wholeness.

Just because there is an Absolute truth and universal pattern to the Trinity
does not mean there cannot be relative expressions of this same trinity

Human nature is body mind and spirit "made in the image of God"

So no matter how you symbolize this
it is referring to the same pattern or structure of levels.

There is only ONE God, so these all have to point to the same
source in order to be universal truth, even though the expressions are culturally different.

is this more clear how there can be Absolute truths and universal laws,
and still be relative expressions that have local meaning to people personally?

There is no need for contradiction between them.

So i am NOT saying to ABUSE relativity and start waxing and waning all over the place with
relative morals and ethics.

People either consent or they don't, either believe or don't.
If you listen and follow what they say they understand or reject,
we can map out the absolute points of agreement even though
we express these differently and relatively per person or context.

When Jesus spoke with farmers he used parables of seeds and farming.
When he spoke with fishermen he spoke of fishing.
When he argued with Pharisees in the temple, he may have argued scripture.
He used whatever language spoke to his audience

So the truths he spoke are still absolutes
but the language was relative to the audience.

is that more clear, or do you need better examples of what I mean?
thanks!

 

[Hollie]

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!

You do realize that nothing in your hysterical rant is objectively true, right?

Your meaningless ranting is no different from the believer of another religion who is just as convinced that their gawds are true.

Really, dude. Just drink the Kool Aid.

 

[amrchaos]

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?

You need a little more information....its still a bit of an enigma as it is

 

[Boss]

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

This is a presumptive philosophy based on the notion that God "cares." That is a human attribute.

Previously, I have asked you to think of God in terms of something you can understand, physical energy. Not that God is "equal to" this, but simply as a way for you to better comprehend how God works in a spiritual sense. So let's take your soliloquy and reconstruc it using "electricity" in place of "god" ....

Is electricity willing to prevent death but unable? Then it has no power.
Is electricity able but not willing? Then it is malevolent.
Is it both willing and able? Then whence comes electrocution?
Is it neither able or willing? Then why call it electricity?

As you can see, none of the arguments make much sense. Electricity exists. It is there for us to benefit from if we chose to use it properly. If we ignore it and chose not to use it, electricity doesn't get it's feelings hurt. If we abuse it and don't use it properly, it has the power to kill us instantly. Electricity doesn't demand that we worship it or honor it in any way, it doesn't care if we do or don't. It doesn't sit in judgement of us or threaten to punish us if we fail to worship it. The choice of what to do with electricity is totally ours. We CAN use electricity to save lives. We can also use it to kill people. Sometimes, it may come down from the sky to just randomly kill someone for no reason. Electricity doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't "care" what we do. We can deny electricity exists and never realize the amazing benefits it affords. We can be afraid of electricity because we don't understand it. We can form all sorts of incarnations of what we think electricity is. We can even believe that electricity "loves" us, if that's what we want to believe. Electricity doesn't care.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes: logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

This is a presumptive philosophy based on the notion that God "cares." That is a human attribute.

Previously, I have asked you to think of God in terms of something you can understand, physical energy. Not that God is "equal to" this, but simply as a way for you to better comprehend how God works in a spiritual sense. So let's take your soliloquy and reconstruc it using "electricity" in place of "god" ....

Is electricity willing to prevent death but unable? Then it has no power.
Is electricity able but not willing? Then it is malevolent.
Is it both willing and able? Then whence comes electrocution?
Is it neither able or willing? Then why call it electricity?

As you can see, none of the arguments make much sense. Electricity exists. It is there for us to benefit from if we chose to use it properly. If we ignore it and chose not to use it, electricity doesn't get it's feelings hurt. If we abuse it and don't use it properly, it has the power to kill us instantly. Electricity doesn't demand that we worship it or honor it in any way, it doesn't care if we do or don't. It doesn't sit in judgement of us or threaten to punish us if we fail to worship it. The choice of what to do with electricity is totally ours. We CAN use electricity to save lives. We can also use it to kill people. Sometimes, it may come down from the sky to just randomly kill someone for no reason. Electricity doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't "care" what we do. We can deny electricity exists and never realize the amazing benefits it affords. We can be afraid of electricity because we don't understand it. We can form all sorts of incarnations of what we think electricity is. We can even believe that electricity "loves" us, if that's what we want to believe. Electricity doesn't care.

The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes: logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

 

[amrchaos]

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!

I love it when two god believers argue.

You haven't read the past, like oh 300 posts!

By the way, GT POSTED SOME NICE ZINGERS!!

So it maybe worth going over it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes: logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!

I love it when two god believers argue.

You haven't read the past, like oh 300 posts!

By the way, GT POSTED SOME NICE ZINGERS!!

So it maybe worth going over it.

The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes: logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

This is a presumptive philosophy based on the notion that God "cares." That is a human attribute.

Previously, I have asked you to think of God in terms of something you can understand, physical energy. Not that God is "equal to" this, but simply as a way for you to better comprehend how God works in a spiritual sense. So let's take your soliloquy and reconstruc it using "electricity" in place of "god" ....

Is electricity willing to prevent death but unable? Then it has no power.
Is electricity able but not willing? Then it is malevolent.
Is it both willing and able? Then whence comes electrocution?
Is it neither able or willing? Then why call it electricity?

As you can see, none of the arguments make much sense. Electricity exists. It is there for us to benefit from if we chose to use it properly. If we ignore it and chose not to use it, electricity doesn't get it's feelings hurt. If we abuse it and don't use it properly, it has the power to kill us instantly. Electricity doesn't demand that we worship it or honor it in any way, it doesn't care if we do or don't. It doesn't sit in judgement of us or threaten to punish us if we fail to worship it. The choice of what to do with electricity is totally ours. We CAN use electricity to save lives. We can also use it to kill people. Sometimes, it may come down from the sky to just randomly kill someone for no reason. Electricity doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't "care" what we do. We can deny electricity exists and never realize the amazing benefits it affords. We can be afraid of electricity because we don't understand it. We can form all sorts of incarnations of what we think electricity is. We can even believe that electricity "loves" us, if that's what we want to believe. Electricity doesn't care.

The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes: logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

And how is this different from the "boastfully arrogant" absolutist?
Who attacks people as lying without due process to prove such charges are true first
before stating this as absolute fact.

Are you saying that type of arrogance is any better than the arrogance of the relativist who smears other people unfoundedly?

 

[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 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.

I have no tolerance for them. None. For they are. . . .

The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes: logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

 

[Boss]

But you just said humans cannot know. We can believe but can't know.

How can you be "so sure" there is no logic for God's ways and means?

Because I believe in a God who created everything, including the logic we comprehend as part of our physical universe. IF there is something akin to "logic" which God uses, it's beyond our ability to comprehend because we aren't Gods. Speculating that God is confined by humanistic logic and reason, is just not something I can believe or accept. That means something is greater than God and God is not omnipotent or Creator of All. I've seen no argument presented which changes my belief. I don't "know" anything... I believe.

 

[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.

I have no tolerance for them. None. For they are. . . .

The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes: logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

OK M.D. I have a premise for you similar to your TAG premise
that any statement that God does not exist "runs into contradictions."

I offer that whatever you say about another person or group,
if it is negative unforgiving excluding judging or rejecting,
then you will end up making contradictory statements at some point
because you commit the same faults as that person/group. We all do.

So we will contradict ourselves if we say
REJECT person or group X
but LISTEN TO WHAT I SAY.

How we treat the least of our neighbors
is how we get treated.

Since we all have strengths and flaws in different areas,
it is unjust to say "blame that person/group more"
and hold me above them. You will run into conflicts that way.

So you can look at the track records of people who
respect all people as equally as possible, and look how well they reconcile with diverse views,
versus people who reject or blame one group more than themselves
and then run into conflicts they can't resolve. You will see a recurring pattern.

 

[Hollie]

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

The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes: logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

Common sense doesn't dictate magic and supernaturalism as models for existence.

And yes, you're a rube.