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

[M.D. Rawlings]

I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.

The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force. Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best. It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter. Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.

I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine. Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them. No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.

Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm. A solipsist mocking the TAG?! What a fool you are you! Those you do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously? Well, they would in fact be same atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.

They are in fact the hypocrites like you who know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above once again that do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult. In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man our of sheer, foolish pride.

Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb. You're a snot-nosed punk. You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!

You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself:

Amrchaos the Confused: "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or a priori in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."


Rawlings: "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"


Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: "Because these rational, a priori axioms of human cognition inside our minds, which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond? Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"


Rawlings: "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​

You fool! Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.

 

[G.T.]

Any rational person mocks the tag.

Its abundantly clear that it begs the question and is a poorly formed attempt at a logical proof.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Any rational person mocks the tag.

Its abundantly clear that it begs the question and is a poorly formed attempt at a logical proof.

Which shows once again that atheists like you do not care about the objective facts of human cognition, the incontrovertible, a priori axioms of logic at all, as you pretend that theists argue from fallacy. You merely rally around the flag of ignorance and self-deceit, utter phonies and liars and hypocrites and intellectual cowards, who instead of conceding that you must necessarily appeal to the paradoxically contradictory notions of irrationalism, the self-negating assertions of relativism, and to the purely inductively derived, empirical foundation of a materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism that is scientifically unverifiable . . . you resort to the mockery of foolish pride.

You rally around one another, slap each other on the back, an orgasmic pile of the pure emotionalism of group-think. Behold: the atheist tribe of the herd-mentality that doesn't even have the integrity to point out to one of their own how insanely stupid it is for a solipsist to assert what would always necessarily have to be an inductive argument, an appeal to experiential materiality against the Transcendental Argument. FOOLS!

 

[G.T.]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

 

[Justin Davis]

Any rational person mocks the tag.

Its abundantly clear that it begs the question and is a poorly formed attempt at a logical proof.

Which shows once again that atheists like you do not care about the objective facts of human cognition, the incontrovertible, a priori axioms of logic at all, as you pretend that theists argue from fallacy. You merely rally around the flag of ignorance and self-deceit, utter phonies and liars and hypocrites and intellectual cowards, who instead of conceding that you must necessarily appeal to the paradoxically contradictory notions of irrationalism, the self-negating assertions of relativism, and to the purely inductively derived, empirical foundation of a materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism that is scientifically unverifiable . . . you resort to the mockery of foolish pride.

You rally around one another, slap each other on the back, an orgasmic pile of the pure emotionalism of group-think. Behold: the atheist tribe of the herd-mentality that doesn't even have the integrity to point out to one of their own how insanely stupid it is for a solipsist to assert what would always necessarily have to be an inductive argument, an appeal to experiential materiality against the Transcendental Argument. FOOLS!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hi MD.
A. I'm glad we agree to focus on the objective approach to understanding and scientifically documenting the spiritual healing process. Since I come from a secular background, I am more used to that approach anyway.
I had to learn the Christian language and symbology similar to a second language,
so I consider my native language to be as a Secular Gentile. My goal is to be equally
trilingual where I can speak as comfortably and clearly with nontheists/Buddhists/secular/naturalists
as I can with Jews/Christians/Muslims and with Constitutionalists on all sides of the spectrum from left to right,
extreme and moderate, even anarchists or socialists and still communicate using common principles of natural laws.

B. As for this relativism
I think you and I are talking about two totally different things.

I think you mean the type of relativistic approach where there is no baseline
but people go all over the place and want freedom to choose all kinds of things
without respect for a common baseline standard.

My standard is consent, so whatever people do, you cannot go around
abusing rights or freedoms to the point you impose on someone else, ideologically or physically etc.

So I believe in resolving conflicts so that no one's beliefs, standards, consent or interests
get excluded, violated or imposed upon.

I find it is a natural law and process that people will express their consent and dissent,
so if we just our our free speech and right to petition to spell out and answer all our grievances
and objections, we could solve problems and come up with some kind of amicable solution as
to what to do or not to do in response to any situation or conflict.

Most of it is addressing the minute there is a conflict, and not waiting for it to escalate or build up
so far out of control that it is emotionally, physically, financially or logically too much to resolve.

Where I differ in terms of relative viewpoints
is that I believe there is both absolute points of truth and agreement
and there are relative ways of expressing, perceiving or arriving at such points.

So I see ways to defend both the absolutes
AND allow for the relatives within that process
and these do not compete or threaten each other.

When I was teaching math, the rules are the same, the symbols are fixed.
There are absolutes that don't change.

But some students would reject one teacher who they just couldn't follow
and want to work with a different teacher who explained or connected with them differently
where they could follow and understand how to process the math. It's the same content,
the same symbols and process, but sometimes the way of explaining or
the personality of the people made a difference.

People are funny that way.
So I've learned to accept it.

Some parables about the Trinity work perfectly for one person
and fall flat with another person. It's the same CONCEPT
but the connection to understand it can vary from person to person.
It's relative depending on their unique spiritual path and process
to still arrive at the same "universal truth through Christ" as Christians call it,
but the Gentiles may go through natural laws and logical thinking to get to the
same or similar stages of realization. they may not go through the Bible or
church teachings to get to the same understanding of God and Jesus.

it can be as different for each person as our souls are unique.

C. I can see why the "relativism" approach causes such problems.
We can go on and on about examples; like right now, people wanting
legalization because it isn't proven to them yet that marijuana causes
longterm brain impairment. So just because it isn't proven fully by their
standards, then it becomes a belief that pot is harmful and by relative
views, other people's beliefs cannot be imposed on their freedom.
But when it comes to paying for the costs of this damage, who is going
to pay the bill? The taxpayers who opposed pot because they don't
want to encourage more such usage and health problems?

That's just one example where proof becomes legally necessary
to stop people from going through loopholes because it isn't established truth yet.

On that note, I am wondering if the argument can be made
to push to fund research on spiritual healing as better for the public interest
than all the money pushed to study pot only.

If you look at the millions invested in pushing medicinal marijuana
compared with spiritual healing that is free, does not have any side effects,
and is more effective in curing a broader range of ills than pot can be used for,
there is no reason not to develop that instead, UNLESS there is some
political agenda biased TOWARD pushing pot specifically and
AGAINST healing methods coming from Christian practitioners.

I think that might expose the entire bias if we were to push
to fund research and development of Spiritual Healing as
superior to pot in most cases, balancing equal funds as is being spent on
researching pot.

Can you imagine the uproar if this were brought out,
and people still wanted to fund pot studies and avoided studies of spiritual healing.
Wouldn't that expose the bias even more.

Anyway I do think we are getting closer to the time that
medical research will be organized around spiritual healing.

People have to be ready for the massive social change this will involve,
so I think most of the prep work was tilling the soil before planting these seeds.

We have to make room for the garden to bloom and grow,
instead of letting everything get overgrown with weeds.

If the timing is right, it will come together and happen.
So I wonder if the push for research into medical marijuana
could open the door to fund R&D on spiritual healing that is purely natural,
free and effective, causes no harm and is not contrary to science or medicine,
and can be shown to help more people with a wider range of conditions,
independent of their faith, it works for secular nontheists equally as for Christians
where the key factor is to forgive issues in the past that otherwise block the natural healing process.
that is universal and not dependent on someone's religion, though forgiveness is the key factor.

I would appreciate your honest opinion, advice
or suggestions on how to go about setting up such R&D.

Even helping Veterans heal from PTSD and implementing
spiritual healing into VA programs could be one angle.
I want to apply it to research on diagnosis, early intervention
and either management or cure of criminal illness, so we can reform
the criminal justice and mental health systems. That would release
a lot of wasted taxpayer funds better invested in more effective sustainable programs
for preventing crime by treating the root causes.

Thanks M.D.!
I can see building a website around this
and promoting outreach to help more people.

Well, as a classical liberal of the Anglo-American tradition and, therefore, a proponent of Lockean natural law, which, by the way, is premised on the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system thought: I certainly have no argument with the preservation of individual liberty against the tyrannical depredations of collectivism, the impositions of a renegade state.

But what you're calling the "relative" experiences of life that vary from person to person are not the stuff of relativism proper, but merely the subjective aspect of the human condition that must never be thought of as something that grants human consciousness primacy over existence. Either, our subjective experiences conform with the universal laws of organic logic and the objective facts of human cognition, or they become something that is the stuff of relativism, namely, the stuff of irrationalism.

 

[sealybobo]

Dear Sealybobo:
People may take SIMILAR approaches
but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.

Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.

I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.

so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.

i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.

This comes from projecting past associations.

So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe

And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!

Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.

You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
on your side as anyone else here. So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.

We can't let that skew our judgment
but you can see here, even the best intended people
are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.

at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.

I think that helps.

If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.

It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.

Lets be honest here. Who and what is it that us atheists don't like? If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here. You ok with us establishing what the problem is?

Ok lets go. I have a lot of friends who believe in god. In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god. I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe. Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers? Not all of them, but some of them have. So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation. Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously. But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.

You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.

And I use to be just like you guys. I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe. But I did believe. In what exactly I don't know. Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too. Sorry to break it to you.

But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E? It's ISIS. It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us. Teach Creationalism in School. No. Teach that shit in your church. We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed. And I think this frightens organized religions. They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.

Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs? No. Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.

See where I'm going with this? You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing. Sorry babe. I love you but you are wrong. We aren't the problem.

Final thought. If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law. LOL. How would you like that? Me neither. So I don't want NONE OF IT. Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.

Again you are projecting. I am more a secular Gentile, so this "keeping it in church" doesn't even apply to me.

To me, the church is ALL the people, ALL humanity that is working for peace and justice.

The only thing I "settle" for is being okay with each person's way including yours.

If you tell me you are nontheist and nonChristian, I accept that.

So how can you be UPSET that I accept Christians who talk to God their way
if I also accept you and your ways that are different?

The same acceptance applies to ALL, so it is not fair to say let's include you
and let's exclude this other group.

If someone or some group is being UNFAIR and conflicting with their approach by imposing unfairly on others,
I ask them to stick more consistently with their own principles and that checks the problem.
Only if they are ABUSING their faith does that impose on others, but if each faith is practiced consistently
then people can check themselves.

No need to reject, just ask people to correct what's wrong by using their own principles.

As for God, this means different things to different people
so I work with each person individually.

I do the same for you, without exception, so I see nothing wrong,
unfair, false, inconsistent, hurtful, abusive, or imposing/exclusive about that.

Maybe I am not your usual Universalist.

I find Buddhism, Christianity and Constitutionalism to be Universal.
Where anyone can be of any faith, and still practice and be included in these equally.
You can be Christian and be of any faith and still add Christ to your beliefs and keep them.
(Only if practice dark magic does this clash and you would have to renounce the manipulative part
and just keep the natural law part of the wicca or pagan practices and Christ fulfills the natural laws equally without conflict)
You can be of any faith or no faith and practice the principles in Buddhism.
And Constitutionalism is supposed to include and protect the free exercise of religion, so there should be no clashes there,
unless you practice violates equal rights and freedoms of others and thus becomes abusive, then it is breaking natural laws.

If Islam is practiced to include all laws then it can be Universal, too,
but if any of these is used to REJECT other people or groups it loses Universality and
becomes biased and problematic.

If you want to question any of my personal beliefs that's fine.

But it would be a mistake to lump me in with other Christians
as I challenge them just as much to keep the message universal
and inclusive of Secular Gentiles under natural laws, including atheists and nontheists.

There are just as many aspects of God and Jesus that are perfectly secular concepts
such as Truth and Justice, Wisdom and Charity, that there is no need to make symbolism a condition on belief.

You can remove all the symbolism and describe the
spiritual process of humanity in secular psychological or sociological terms
and it is still the same process that is sybmolized in Christianity and the Bible.

It is still the universal message of Justice that is solely attributed to Jesus as the central symbol for salvation for all humanity.
You dn't hve to personify Justice as Jesus to believe in Equal Justice and Peace for all people.

We should send you into Syria to tell ISIS this.

“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.”

 

[sealybobo]

Any rational person mocks the tag.

Its abundantly clear that it begs the question and is a poorly formed attempt at a logical proof.

Which shows once again that atheists like you do not care about the objective facts of human cognition, the incontrovertible, a priori axioms of logic at all, as you pretend that theists argue from fallacy. You merely rally around the flag of ignorance and self-deceit, utter phonies and liars and hypocrites and intellectual cowards, who instead of conceding that you must necessarily appeal to the paradoxically contradictory notions of irrationalism, the self-negating assertions of relativism, and to the purely inductively derived, empirical foundation of a materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism that is scientifically unverifiable . . . you resort to the mockery of foolish pride.

You rally around one another, slap each other on the back, an orgasmic pile of the pure emotionalism of group-think. Behold: the atheist tribe of the herd-mentality that doesn't even have the integrity to point out to one of their own how insanely stupid it is for a solipsist to assert what would always necessarily have to be an inductive argument, an appeal to experiential materiality against the Transcendental Argument. FOOLS!

You are so gay for MD Rawlings.

 

[sealybobo]

Dear Sealybobo:
People may take SIMILAR approaches
but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.

Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.

I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.

so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.

i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.

This comes from projecting past associations.

So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe

And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!

Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.

You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
on your side as anyone else here. So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.

We can't let that skew our judgment
but you can see here, even the best intended people
are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.

at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.

I think that helps.

If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.

It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.

Lets be honest here. Who and what is it that us atheists don't like? If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here. You ok with us establishing what the problem is?

Ok lets go. I have a lot of friends who believe in god. In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god. I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe. Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers? Not all of them, but some of them have. So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation. Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously. But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.

You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.

And I use to be just like you guys. I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe. But I did believe. In what exactly I don't know. Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too. Sorry to break it to you.

But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E? It's ISIS. It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us. Teach Creationalism in School. No. Teach that shit in your church. We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed. And I think this frightens organized religions. They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.

Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs? No. Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.

See where I'm going with this? You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing. Sorry babe. I love you but you are wrong. We aren't the problem.

Final thought. If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law. LOL. How would you like that? Me neither. So I don't want NONE OF IT. Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.

That's weird. I've never known any churches that work people up to hate atheists.

What about the town hall meeting full of christians that were furious that the atheist girl sued the school because of some plaque that was up that had the lords prayer on it? She won. The courts ruled in her favor. Yet these theists were furious. I'm telling you if they could have lynched her they would have.

You/They are not much different than they were in the 1700's when they were burning witches at the stake. Maybe you guys are a little more civilized now but not much. Religion keeps people from evolving more mentally. It keeps us ignorant. It is a stupid idea. IE You are dumb for believing it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

It is universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, a priori axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4, are not universally held to hold or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.

See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is #2, when it's #1 of the following:

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, GT.

I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, GT.

How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that knowledge (or anything else) can exist if God (the Creator) doesn't exist.

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. What is arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like GT the Intellectual Coward, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves. And apparently Amrchaos is an intellectual coward too, only his intellectual cowardice is compounded by the foolishness of one who is a solipsist necessarily appealing to empirical materiality in a failed inductive argument. Hence, he thinks to mock the TAG, but only ends up mocking himself!

Looky here. The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!

No one but a fool or a liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: Why is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?

Answer: Yes. We do.

Why is the assertion that God does exist an axiom in our minds?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/


Atheism, thy name is Intellectual Cowardice.

 

[Justin Davis]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

So now the atheists are denying the laws of logic.

 

[G.T.]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

It is universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, a priori axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4, are not universally held to hold or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.

See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is #2, when it's #1 of the following:

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, GT.

I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, GT.

How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. What is arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like GT the Intellectual Coward, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.

No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: Why is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?

Answer: Yes. We do.

Why is the assertion that God does exist an axiom in our minds?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/


Atheism, thy name is Intellectual Cowardice.

Oh...so 100% of people believe in god?

That's so weird, this earth you're living on. Its not this one.

 

[Hollie]

I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.

The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force. Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best. It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter. Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.

I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine. Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them. No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.

Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm. A solipsist mocking the TAG?! What a fool you are you! Those you do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously? Well, they would in fact be same atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.

They are in fact the hypocrites like you who know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above once again that do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult. In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man our of sheer, foolish pride.

Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb. You're a snot-nosed punk. You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!

You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself:

Amrchaos the Confused: "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or a priori in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."


Rawlings: "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"


Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: "Because these rational, a priori axioms of human cognition inside our minds, which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond? Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"


Rawlings: "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​

You fool! Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.

"Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously...."

Actually, it would be foolish to take seriously your pointless, irrational and self-refuting babbling.

You hyper-religious loons are more often than not, a danger to yourselves and those around you.

 

[G.T.]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

So now the atheists are denying the laws of logic.

The laws of logic don't dictate that there's a god, that's a charlatans way of abusing those laws to their own biases.

Snake


Oil

 

[Hollie]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

It is universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, a priori axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4, are not universally held to hold or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.

See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is #2, when it's #1 of the following:

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, GT.

I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, GT.

How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. What is arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like GT the Intellectual Coward, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.

No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: Why is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?

Answer: Yes. We do.

Why is the assertion that God does exist an axiom in our minds?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/


Atheism, thy name is Intellectual Cowardice.

TAG, promoted by those with tin foil hats.

 

[G.T.]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

It is universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, a priori axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4, are not universally held to hold or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.

See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is #2, when it's #1 of the following:

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, GT.

I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, GT.

How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. What is arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like GT the Intellectual Coward, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.

No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: Why is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?

Answer: Yes. We do.

Why is the assertion that God does exist an axiom in our minds?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/


Atheism, thy name is Intellectual Cowardice.

TAG, promoted by those with tin foil hats.

He's like stretch Armstrong.

 

[Justin Davis]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

So now the atheists are denying the laws of logic.

The laws of logic don't dictate that there's a god, that's a charlatans way of abusing those laws to their own biases.

Snake


Oil

"Looky here. The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!"

 

[Justin Davis]

I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.

The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force. Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best. It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter. Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.

I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine. Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them. No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.

Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm. A solipsist mocking the TAG?! What a fool you are you! Those you do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously? Well, they would in fact be same atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.

They are in fact the hypocrites like you who know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above once again that do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult. In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man our of sheer, foolish pride.

Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb. You're a snot-nosed punk. You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!

You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself:

Amrchaos the Confused: "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or a priori in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."


Rawlings: "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"


Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: "Because these rational, a priori axioms of human cognition inside our minds, which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond? Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"


Rawlings: "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​

You fool! Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.

"Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously...."

Actually, it would be foolish to take seriously your pointless, irrational and self-refuting babbling.

You hyper-religious loons are more often than not, a danger to yourselves and those around you.

"Looky here. The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!"

I don't care who you are that's funnier than a three-legged horse runny in the Belmont Stakes.

 

[G.T.]

Hurt Dee duuuurr durrrr

Dork

 

[G.T.]

I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.

The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force. Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best. It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter. Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.

I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine. Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them. No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.

Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm. A solipsist mocking the TAG?! What a fool you are you! Those you do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously? Well, they would in fact be same atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.

They are in fact the hypocrites like you who know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above once again that do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult. In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man our of sheer, foolish pride.

Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb. You're a snot-nosed punk. You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!

You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself:

Amrchaos the Confused: "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or a priori in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."


Rawlings: "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"


Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: "Because these rational, a priori axioms of human cognition inside our minds, which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond? Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"


Rawlings: "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​

You fool! Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.

"Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously...."

Actually, it would be foolish to take seriously your pointless, irrational and self-refuting babbling.

You hyper-religious loons are more often than not, a danger to yourselves and those around you.

"Looky here. The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!"

I don't care who you are that's funnier than a three-legged horse runny in the Belmont Stakes.

Horses "runny," now, Mr. Rawlings?