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

[Hollie]

Emily

Kindness can only reach people that are receptive to it.

Tolerance is for those who might mean no harm.

It is a brave thing to offer either to people you do not know. But make no mistake in assuming everyone will reciprocate your kindness or mean no harm.

There is a point when you must stop. If, at least, for the sake of your sanity.

There are people with dark personalities. They will not reciprocate your kindness, and they will take advantage of your tolerance.

Please keep what I said in mind as this thread continues.

And there are people with false, hypocritical personalities who manipulate the truth, who say stupid things and mock the simple truths of common sense.

And you count yourself among them, right?

[

He created everything in this universe.
We know very little or next to nothing yet about parallel worlds.

God did not create everything that exists in this universe. God created everything that exists apart from Himself. God did not create the logic that exists in this universe. The logic that exists in this universe was bestowed on it by God. Our logic is God's logic. Logic has always existed in God from eternity. Logic was not created.

"...... because I say so"

 

[BreezeWood]

None of you believe something comes from nothing ...

that is relative to the moment of Singularity neither you nor rawlings were willing to ascribe as which state existed before or prior to the event - that would be similar to the confluence between thought and absolute knowledge as the preface for becoming a Spiritual being.

the likelihood whether there was a prior God or not after an original event being irrelevant to the creation of a new one.

.

 

[Justin Davis]

Funny thing about all this

It is so easy to make an inductive argument for any religion based on the experiences of "all" the followers, from its inception to present.

However, deductive arguments are difficult to make for the most simplest of things that exist.

I think the op is running a really bad joke, IMHO.

The real funny thing about all this is that you're solipsist arguing against the TAG or arguing against the seven things that aren't true outside your mind, and none of atheist have enough sense to come in out of the rain and realize how moonbat stupid you are. You atheists don't think, you pom pom each other no matter how stupid the things you say are.

You said that you know atheists who agree that the 7 things are true. I asked you, "how is it then they are still atheists?".

And if I can agree your 7 things are correct and still be an atheist, fine, your 7 things are 100% correct. So what? If it doesn't prove anything to your atheists friends, then why do you think it will prove anything to us?

Me and the wife had friends over two weekends ago, mostly Christian friends but also my atheists friends since high school. I showed them the seven things. They know they are true because they understand the laws of logic. They agree that the seven things are logically true. Two of them even see why number six is logically true. The other two weren't sure. The funniest thing is that the two who could see it were trying to explain it to the other two and kept asking them why can't you see that. It's logically true. Finally, they got it after they stopped trying to think about it the wrong say. One of them already knew about the seven things, though not like that, just that she had thought about those kinds of things before and knew about the TAG. They're new to the others, but she said that doesn't mean they're true spiritually. Her words but I know what she meant. She says that they are logically true but what if nature just wired us like that and that's all. One of the others said that he never realized that logic says God exists before and I could tell that it was on his mind the rest of the night. It does prove something. They're logically true. Stop being thick. I've talked to other atheists on Facebook who agree they're logically true, but they say that evolution just did things that way. So everybody's got their own reason. Everyone can see the seven things are logically true. Some believe their true because God is behind them, some believe that nature just did that. Your question doesn't make any sense. What do you mean what do they prove? They prove your crazy if you can't see that they're logically true. Whether you believe what they're saying is true ultimately is up to you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it.

LMFAO... NOW we have "commonsensical" logic! This is presumably logic which comes from our "common sense" (aka: conventional wisdom)

Do I need to chronicle the plethora of "common sense" beliefs humans have held through history, which turned out to be totally incorrect? I'm not sure if USMB can handle the bandwidth!

LMFAO ... LMFAO ... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO...

Shades of Hollie. Boss, "I'll just pretend I don't understand."

God is omnipotent; therefore he created logic. Boss in the gap, no minor premise, no connection at all. No common sense. God is omnipotent; therefore he created himself. God is omnipotent; therefore he created the tooth fairy. God is omnipotent; therefore he created Santa Clause. My dog has four legs; therefore my dog is a cat. Santa Clause has boots; therefore Santa Clause created God. Humans have sentience; therefore God doesn't.

Major premise.
Minor premises.
Conclusion.

Boss' argument, major premise jumps to non sequitur. It's moonbat crazy.

LMFAO ... LMFAO ... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO...

God is omnipotent.
Humans have sentience.
God doesn't have sentience.
I know he doesn't have sentience because I told myself he doesn't have sentience.
We can only believe what's true, not known what's true.
I know its true that God doesn't have sentience.
I know its true that God created logic.
Logic is created.
Santa Clause exists.
My dog is a cat.
Elvis lives.
I believe what I believe.
I know what I know.
I don't know what I know.
I only believe.
The tooth fairy exists.
God is not God.
I'm God.

Actually, except for all the LMFAOs, that does look like something I might write . . . sort of, though I would show the logic of what he's actually arguing for real. But basically that's what he's doing: because of A, therefore B. There's no connection! Stop morphing, Justin!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Not a bang (a real counterargument), but another whimper. More relativist crap for which there is no defense but insults and bald denials.

Yeah... question is, why do you and Justin continue doing that?

The real question is why a solipsist is arguing against the TAG.

I know. Right?

Rawlings is a total Jackass.
Justin is an Eddie Murphy cartoon wannabe jackass who follows Rawlings around offering to make waffles!

Sorry, Boss, but you're wrong again. I'm not the jackass around here. I'm the guy pinning the tails on the prideful jackasses. Remember? I'm the guy who spoke to you civilly about this obvious error in your logic, proved it beyond dispute. I even allowed, objectively speaking, that you might be ultimately right, but not because anything existed rationally or empirically to support your position. If you are right, then our logic would have to be all wrong. You're the one who got all butt hurt and abusive when I wouldn't agree with you! You're the one who started the mocking while standing on utter bullshit, more at, standing on nothing but blind faith.

Here's the real fascinating dynamic of human psychology, i.e., the herd mentality. Now everyone can see that your argument is syllogistic in nature, can see that it's utter tripe. The major premise is clearly false. There's no minor premise. The conclusion is a non sequitur; in fact, it's hanging in midair, floating, tied to nothing but smoke and mirrors. There's no connection at all to anything. Yet three people agreed with you. LOL! No one appreciates the gad fly. Folks prefer their delusions.


The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy

The Boss in the Gap Argument for Created Logic
1. God created everything.
2. Boss in the gap
3. Hence, God created logic.


The Boss in the Gap Argument for Human Truth
1. Humans can only believe truth.
2. Boss in the gap
3. Hence, humans cannot know truth.


The Boss in the Gap Argument for the Anthropomorphism of God
1. Humans can only think about God on the terms of their understanding of consciousness: human logic and human emotions.
2. Boss in the gap
3. Hence, humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.


The Boss in the Gap Argument for "Nuh-huh, I Didn't Really Mean That"
1. God created everything.
2. Boss in the gap
3. Hence, God created logic.

Or:

1. Humans can only believe truth.
2. Boss in the gap
3. Hence, humans cannot know truth.

Or in the arguments where he thinks he's arguing something different, something I supposedly don't understand, when in fact it is he who fails to chart the true course of his own logic:

1. Humans think of God as having a consciousness that entails emotions and logic akin to their own because their consciousness is the only means by which they can think about consciousness.
2. Boss in the gap
3. Hence, "I never said the claptrap that humans necessarily anthropomorphize the consciousness of God in their minds."
[4. Rawlings, filling in the gap for Boss: "Yes, you effectively and necessary did!"]



Yep! Looks like we've got fallacious major premises, followed by no real minor premises at all connecting the major premises to the conclusions, except, of course, some mysterious thought processes going on in Boss's mind with Boss in the gap.



The Boss in the Gap Argument for Rawlings Supposed Irrationalism
1. Rawlings does not support his argument.
2. Boss ignoring the objective facts of human cognition, including the necessary line and implications of his own reasoning as if none of us noticed, as he stands in the gap
3. Rawlings is irrational.
[4. Rawlings: "Hogwash! See Post #4191."]

Or:

1. Rawlings points out that God is omniscient, all-knowing. Hence, God is the very substance and the ground of the first principles of knowledge: the universal laws of thought! God did not create everything that exists. God did not create Himself or any necessary aspect of His Mind. That is axiomatic. The logic that humans have is the uncreated logic of God endowed on man! The terms create and endow are not synonymous.
2. Straw man Boss in the gap
3. Hence, because Rawlings argues that God created everything (?), his statement that God didn't create logic contradicts his statement that God didn't create everything (?).
[4. Rawlings: "Boss is outside his mind and his nonsense has been utterly refuted here and in Post #4191. If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it. But his lies less than honest claims and confused thinking are tiresome, verging on an age older than dirt and exponentially more stupid."]

 

[Justin Davis]

None of you believe something comes from nothing ...

that is relative to the moment of Singularity neither you nor rawlings were willing to ascribe as which state existed before or prior to the event - that would be similar to the confluence between thought and absolute knowledge as the preface for becoming a Spiritual being.

the likelihood whether there was a prior God or not after an original event being irrelevant to the creation of a new one.

.

I don't know what Rawlings told you but I told you the first time that the quantum vacuum caused the singularity. That's all we know scientifically. I don't know quantum physics good enough to say anymore. Ask Rawlings about that. What's this got to do with God? Either the material stuff always existed in some kind of state or God always existed and created it. We only know of two different kinds of things in the ultimate sense. Mind or matter and something had to come first. That's our choice. So who came before that God and before that God and before that God?

 

[Justin Davis]

Another phony. Your arguments are total crap. They're retarded. They're stupid and contradictory. Yeah and this filth is all you got left. Are you Hollie? Did Hollie hijack your account?

Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.

Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.

Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god? Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.

You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.

So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god. Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".

And I would agree with you. If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too. But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.

Actually, MD's argument is a pretty good one, and I don't disagree with it. Where MD fails is when he goes off the rails on the crazy train and starts applying human characteristics and attributes to God. Of course, this is where most organized religions fail as well.

You're already on record silly boob, you believe in something greater than self, you've admitted it in the past, and you tepidly admit that here. Your problem is, you don't want to openly admit that because you think it lends some kind of credibility to religious beliefs. You're anti-religion because they pose a threat to your immoral viewpoints.

You go off the train. The vast majority of theists in the world believe that God does have sentience, just like logic proves. God didn't create logic because God created everything! Moonbat crazy. Boss in the gap. You're arguing just like the atheist flakes now.

God didn't create logic because God created everything!

Does anyone else find this sentence to make any sort of rational sense whatsoever?

You know what I meant. I said it wrong that's all. I meant to say that God created logic because God created everything, because that's your idea. Everyone knows it makes no sense to say that God created everything. That's moonbat crazy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily!

I gave you some revised posts to think very carefully about.

You claimed that Godel believed something he never believed or asserted in his life as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You expressed this idea as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You clearly believed this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You got this false idea from GT, apparently, and because it played into your bias, you swallowed it hook, line and sinker without bothering to verify whether or not it is a literal truth, a literal historical fact.

Then you repeated it.

It is ridiculous for you to hold that anyone reading your post could have possibly interpreted your statement in any other way, especially given the fact that you lectured me in another post with this very same notion as if I failed to understand this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact. I wouldn't have even noticed this post until you startled me with a post suggesting that all the things I have argued about the mathematical proofs for God's existence on this thread were unknown to me!

Whaaaaaaa?

Because I do not think as you do, anthropomorphically subjectively, but theologically objectively, I will always see right through the manifest intellectual duplicity of others. I think like God because I believe God’s testimony, not that of any finite creature.

I don't even trust myself.

You suggested that I was an arrogant asshole. Maybe you’re just a gullible, dogmatically fanatical religionist . . . a closed-minded, arrogant asshole.

How about this idea. Maybe you and others can't countenance a person who doesn’t care what you think or what you have to say about him when he tells you the truth about yourself. You can't countenance a person who believes God, instead of you.

Your wont is to worship self, rather than the Creator Who is blessed forever. Your wont is to chase after your personal conceits that do not follow from the logical testimony that God has given you about Himself.

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

Godel's incomplete theorems prove no such truth!

That is a lie.

The author of this piece worships self. His wont is to justify what cannot be rationally justified: the self-serving falsehoods and incoherencies of relativism. Is that your wont? I don't believe him. I don't believe you. I believe God, and let every man who says otherwise be a liar.

On the contrary, Godel's theorems, in truth, what are ultimately the objective facts of human cognition endowed to us by God, prove that mankind can know truths with absolute confidence. We know that the various theorems for the numerical sets of the natural numbers of the number line of infinity, albeit, as supplemented by the theorems that account for the exceptions of general rules, inherently hold true, and we know this to be true with absolute confidence because the laws of organic thought hold this to be true.

The other thing that these objective facts of human cognition (incompleteness theorems) prove to be true is that we cannot comprehend or contain the entirety of truth in our finite minds, not just at the transcendental level of being, which is something we've always known to be true intuitively, but not at the rational level of being, either, in terms of numerical/mathematical logic . . . something we once thought to be possible 'til Gödel came along and proved that to be an illusion.

That is the absolute truth regarding what these theorems prove, and they prove nothing else but these truths. That statement is logically true, necessary and coherent.

They do not prove, as the author absurdly and contradictory claims, indeed, as he necessarily claims, in the very same breath, that nothing can be proven or known to be true, but the truth that no truths can be known. Whaaaaa? Hence, the truth that no truths can be proven or known cannot be proven or known to be true.

That is logically false, impossible, irrational, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite. The theorems do prove things to be true, things that are known to be true. But not only do the theorems prove these things. They prove that human consciousness does not have primacy over existence! Existence is what it is, and it has primacy over human consciousness. More at, these things underscore the absolute, incontrovertible laws of human thought!

Truth is not relative in human logic, but absolute!

Subjective opinions that do not line up with organic logic are necessarily false according to organic logic.

Indeed, the author's guff that all our notions are "based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah)" is more incoherent baby talk.

A priori knowledge consists of the universally absolute axioms and tautologies of organic logic. The scripture of any given religious system of thought is clearly a posteriori in nature, not prior. Hence, the author's statement has no bearing on the issue of what can be known or proven to be true whatsoever. Illusion.

The author is a gullible fool. God is not an idiot or a liar. He is perfect. The logic He endowed on us does not lie. And not only does the author's guff not square with itself due to the inescapable laws of organic logic, it obviously doesn't square with the facts/truths of the ontological and transcendental proofs for God's existence in organic and modal logic.

Hence, this nonsense of yours about people rejecting me is the self-serving crap of gullible fools who cannot justify their idiocy or their lies of relativism no matter how hard they try.

It's not about me and never has been about me. It's about God's truth or, objectively speaking, at the very least, it's about what objective logic proves as opposed to the irrationality of subjective relativism!

This cheap, transparently hypocritical ploy of yours is just you projecting your group-think psychology on me.

It is I and other folks like me who believe God who have been doing the rejecting around here, not you.

I reject your relativistic guff. I reject Hollie the Hate-Filled Luntic's, GT the Missing Links', Jake the Drug Addled Mind's, Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet's, Boss the Obtuse's, sealybobo the Magical's, QW the Sneak's, Brucethenonthinker's, Clayton Jones The Sociopath's . . . guff.

It's the other way around.

I believe the logic. You guys believe in something else that's purely subjective and irrational.

Apparently, you need the herd mentality's stamp of approval. I don't. I put no stock in my opinions or yours or those of anyone else. I put my stock in what God has to say on the matter, what His logic proves about the matter, what you don't have the faith to believe in because you have no faith in anything but the lies you tell yourself and the lies of the herd mentality.

Check?

Dear M.D. Rawlings
Are you replying to old msgs?
Twice already I said to drop that interpretation of Godel since you didn't agree.

What I was TRYING to say is what you mean when you
say humans cannot prove things using science.

So I agree to stick to YOUR way of saying it.
That is what I mean.

What YOU mean by saying science does not prove things
this is close enough to what I mean by human knowledge is finite
and God's knowledge being infinite exceeds human science.

I said that was close enough and agreed to drop any
interpretation of Godel and just stick with your way of saying it
to keep it simple.

Thanks and sorry you missed those two msgs
where I agreed to drop it.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Emily, you don't think for yourself If you don't agree with ME!"

-MD FRAWLING

Hi GT and M.D.

1. on the absolutes and universal points we already agree
2. where M.D. is getting tripped out is he doesn't get that
how we EXPRESS these things can vary for different people.

You cannot use the same words literally if people are using them differently.

For example, M.D. does not get what Boss and I mean by saying people cannot know the truth.
the way M.D. "says the same thing in HIS system"
is people cannot use science to PROVE things.

He has a different way of saying the equivalent concept.
So unless he makes this connection, he jumps on me and on Boss for saying it in a different way.

When Boss makes a distinction between God's logic that is beyond our grasp (though MD and I argue that this can be Represented using finite logic) and man's logic that is like the science created BY GOD,
the M.D. jumps on Boss for this statement about logic.

But in M.D.'s system, he uses SCIENCE to say the equivalent thing:
that science is limited and cannot prove things.

We are talking in circles unless either
Boss agrees to use M.D.'s language
or M.D. agrees to recognize these as "equivalent" parallels in our respective systems
or something.

I tried to explain to M.D. several times that I am OK
with using M.D.'s way of saying the same concept but using the term science.

And M.D. still wants to argue about how I said it before which I agreed to drop.

So Justin and M.D. DO NOT GET this concept
about people's relative expressions for the same concept!

They will continue to nitpick over the letter of the terminology
if they don't learn to look at the CONCEPTS and align those.
The symbols should FOLLOW the concepts, not be a stumbling block.

I may have to talk about this concept separately using a total neutral context.

Like saying if
Boss were Spanish and Gateaux sounds like CAT
but M.D. is French where Gateaux means CAKE
then they can argue back and forth what GATO means because they use the same
phonetic sounds to mean two totally different concepts.

But if they focus on the CONCEPTS then they can distinguish CAT from CAKE
and then learn what terms both people use for each where they don't confuse the two.

M.D. does not get that Boss means something different by logic
on two levels: teh human level is like SCIENCE that cannot prove things,
and the level of logic that is on God's level Boss considers that beyond man's grasp
and we cannot conjecture about that because we can't know this.

For some reason I am not able to explain to M.D.
this is close to what he was saying that man's science cannot prove things (what Boss
aligns with logic on a human level)
and so he is trying to use the universal preexisting logic that just exists on its own.

Somehow we are getting our terms and levels of logic/laws/knowledge
mixed up or divided differently on the spectrum.

In Buddhism there are more vocabulary worlds for the different levels of awareness, mindfulness, consciousness, understanding, views, etc.

Maybe what Boss is talking about is a different level that requires a distinct term
apart from what M.D. is talking about.

We all have our own words and ways.
Since we are trying to describe the same universal laws and truths out there,
these should align when we agree what terms to use to mean which level and not get them confused.

Justin and M.D. have zero experience and do'nt seem to have any
concept of this alignment process, but I have to go through it every time
I talk to someone about religion and politics because we label things differently on the spectrum
and have to calibrate our scales to align which things or levels we are referring to.

I do this all the time, and J and M the absolutists have never bothered
adjusting ot other people's cultural ways of saying similar things,
but always expected other people to adjust to them.

The concepts are the same, but the terms are relative.

I have not found one system that works for all people, but each
person uses different terms and align with like groups.

It is ironic that Justin and M.D. are so big on absolutes
but have no concept of relative cultural expressions.
what do you think the different religious tribes are for?
these are all languages for the same laws.
Amazing they don't seem to have anygrasp or experience with that.

 

[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.

So who made my shit stink?

Whatever you ate made it come out that way.

 

[emilynghiem]

Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.

Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.

Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god? Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.

You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.

So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god. Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".

And I would agree with you. If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too. But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.

Actually, MD's argument is a pretty good one, and I don't disagree with it. Where MD fails is when he goes off the rails on the crazy train and starts applying human characteristics and attributes to God. Of course, this is where most organized religions fail as well.

You're already on record silly boob, you believe in something greater than self, you've admitted it in the past, and you tepidly admit that here. Your problem is, you don't want to openly admit that because you think it lends some kind of credibility to religious beliefs. You're anti-religion because they pose a threat to your immoral viewpoints.

You go off the train. The vast majority of theists in the world believe that God does have sentience, just like logic proves. God didn't create logic because God created everything! Moonbat crazy. Boss in the gap. You're arguing just like the atheist flakes now.

God didn't create logic because God created everything!

Does anyone else find this sentence to make any sort of rational sense whatsoever?

Lets start over please, from the beginning. Who is god? Where can I see him? How do you know this god exists?

And it doesn't bother you that every organized religion(s) stories about meeting him in the past are all a bunch of lies? Doesn't make you wonder if the entire premise is made up?

Then you are dumb.

Hi Sealybobo
People experience God/Life in different ways.

If you are okay just calling things the forces in life or forces of nature
that's still referring to universal laws of how the world works.

Some ppl personify God and talk to God as a personal connection.
Some people receive insights or wisdom from a higher source but don't see this as personal.

So there is every variation in between.

the issue is how does each indvidual relate to the
collective whole: collective truth or knowledge, collective society or humanity, collective laws.

If we understand that we connect by CONSCIENCe
this is what people use Christ to symbolize.

If we believe there is a unifyig spirit of Justice that all humanity can embrace
and agree to embodyand enforce equal laws and protection for all,
this is what receiving Jesus is used to symbolize to bring peacea nd salvation to all humanity.

If we don't have faithin Jesus or Justice saving humanity,
then we work through our forgiveness issues until we establish a common
agreement on truth and good will for all people.

So this is the same process for all people, regardless if someone
personifies Truth and Justice as God and Jesus or keeps in impersonal and nontheistic.

it's the same universal laws and spiritual process of humans coming to peace with
truth by free will where we reconcile and unite in harmony.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Boss and MD
Since MD talks about logic on a level that is different from how Boss places logic,
I offer that we focus on DEMONSTRATING spiritual healing using science.

so regardless if God created logic or logic was selfexistent and bestowed by God
and whether MD's logic is the same logic of God or MD's way is relative but he sees it as one with the
absolute truth of God, etc etc

at least we can focus on science that can demonstrate the validity
of the spiritual healing process as natural, and different people
including atheists can relate to this level of SCIENCE.

I propose we start there, get that level straight,
and then go back and see if we can resolve the other levels of logic either self-existent or createdb y God,e tc.

Because the process of studying spiritual healing
tends to bring out healing and forgiveness around it,
this will help indirectly resolve other issues and conflicts.

these other arguments are not making meaningful connections with the atheists and nontheists,
but scientific studies and demonstration of spiritual healing would appeal to the
level they process information. so this will help on several levels and make things easier.

 

[Boss]

Lets start over please, from the beginning. Who is god? Where can I see him? How do you know this god exists?

And it doesn't bother you that every organized religion(s) stories about meeting him in the past are all a bunch of lies? Doesn't make you wonder if the entire premise is made up?

Then you are dumb.

Let me talk about this emphasis you place on "seeing" something. You have to realize that human sight is a particular sensory perception we have, where we are able to detect reflection of light frequency bouncing off material objects. An orange is not actually orange, it is absorbing all colors other than orange. God is not a material object and doesn't reflect light since it is the source of all light. God is omnipresent, so if you could "see" God, you would be unable to "see" anything else. i.e.; You would be blind.

That said, God is also omnipotent. Therefore, it is not impossible that God could manifest itself into material form which could be "seen" by humans. This means stories of the past could be true, I have no way of confirming it or denying it. Faith is required to believe those accounts.

Now... How do I know God exists? Well, you admit you know 'something' exists. This is because you are intrinsically spiritually aware of something greater than self. Rawlings' argument demonstrates how it's impossible for us as humans to deny this awareness. So it's not "dumb" but rather very natural and normal. Only about 5% claim to not have this awareness, but we don't know how many of those are being simply dishonest about that. We know that humans have the capacity to make themselves believe untruths.

 

[Boss]

Everyone knows it makes no sense to say that God created everything. That's moonbat crazy.

God created everything that is a thing.

You speaking for everyone doesn't impress me.

Thanks for the prognosis of my mental state but I'm good.

 

[Hollie]

Lets start over please, from the beginning. Who is god? Where can I see him? How do you know this god exists?

And it doesn't bother you that every organized religion(s) stories about meeting him in the past are all a bunch of lies? Doesn't make you wonder if the entire premise is made up?

Then you are dumb.

Let me talk about this emphasis you place on "seeing" something. You have to realize that human sight is a particular sensory perception we have, where we are able to detect reflection of light frequency bouncing off material objects. An orange is not actually orange, it is absorbing all colors other than orange. God is not a material object and doesn't reflect light since it is the source of all light. God is omnipresent, so if you could "see" God, you would be unable to "see" anything else. i.e.; You would be blind.

That said, God is also omnipotent. Therefore, it is not impossible that God could manifest itself into material form which could be "seen" by humans. This means stories of the past could be true, I have no way of confirming it or denying it. Faith is required to believe those accounts.

Now... How do I know God exists? Well, you admit you know 'something' exists. This is because you are intrinsically spiritually aware of something greater than self. Rawlings' argument demonstrates how it's impossible for us as humans to deny this awareness. So it's not "dumb" but rather very natural and normal. Only about 5% claim to not have this awareness, but we don't know how many of those are being simply dishonest about that. We know that humans have the capacity to make themselves believe untruths.

Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?

Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.

There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.

 

[Boss]

Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?

Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.

There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.

Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality.

Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.

 

[Hollie]

Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?

Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.

There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.

Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality.

Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.

It's fine to invent your "5%" slogan and claim it's true but that only serves to promote your slogan, not truth.

You apparently are so convinced your invented slogans are true, you ignore the obvious demographics. I suppose you're hoping to suggest that the islamist Middle East is overwhelming islamist because people there have an "intrinsic" affiliation with Islam? Similarly, we can attribute Hinduism in India with an "intrinsic" affiliation with those gawds?

Nonsense. Overwhelmingly, people's religion is nothing more than accepting the religion of their cultural, familial surroundings.

 

[Boss]

Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?

Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.

There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.

Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality.

Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.

It's fine to invent your "5%" slogan and claim it's true but that only serves to promote your slogan, not truth.

You apparently are so convinced your invented slogans are true, you ignore the obvious demographics. I suppose you're hoping to suggest that the islamist Middle East is overwhelming islamist because people there have an "intrinsic" affiliation with Islam? Similarly, we can attribute Hinduism in India with an "intrinsic" affiliation with those gawds?

Nonsense. Overwhelmingly, people's religion is nothing more than accepting the religion of their cultural, familial surroundings.

People's religion is the result of their intrinsic spiritual awareness. It doesn't make their religion true, it makes their spiritual awareness true. This cannot be denied, the evidence is overwhelming.

Did you know, in Sweden, the most "atheist" country in the world, 33% report to be atheists... only 15% say they absolutely don't believe in the possibility of anything greater than self. You'd think with "atheists" that number would be significantly higher. But nope.

 

[Hollie]

Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?

Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.

There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.

Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality.

Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.

It's fine to invent your "5%" slogan and claim it's true but that only serves to promote your slogan, not truth.

You apparently are so convinced your invented slogans are true, you ignore the obvious demographics. I suppose you're hoping to suggest that the islamist Middle East is overwhelming islamist because people there have an "intrinsic" affiliation with Islam? Similarly, we can attribute Hinduism in India with an "intrinsic" affiliation with those gawds?

Nonsense. Overwhelmingly, people's religion is nothing more than accepting the religion of their cultural, familial surroundings.

People's religion is the result of their intrinsic spiritual awareness. It doesn't make their religion true, it makes their spiritual awareness true. This cannot be denied, the evidence is overwhelming.

Did you know, in Sweden, the most "atheist" country in the world, 33% report to be atheists... only 15% say they absolutely don't believe in the possibility of anything greater than self. You'd think with "atheists" that number would be significantly higher. But nope.

People's religion is the result of their indoctrination with cultural and familial influences.

There is no such thing as "spiritual awareness". Your invented term is meaningless.

Dud you know that per government sources, 100% of the population in the KSA is Moslem? Remarkable, don't you think. I suppose that the Allah gawd has the service area franchise for that geographic area because 100% of the population has an intrinsic spirit realm connection to Muhammad.

 

[Taz]

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.

So who made my shit stink?

Whatever you ate made it come out that way.

But god created the smell. Just like he created everything else in the universe.