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

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions?

 

[G.T.]

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

 

[Boss]

Relativism is Pride and Arrogance, Foolish Pride and Arrogance!

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

God is Love. Did God create love?

God is Truth. Did God create truth?

God is Omniscience. Did God create omniscience?

God is Omnipotence. Did God create omnipotence?

God is Omnipresence. Did God create omnipresence?

God is Rationality and Order. Did God create rationality and order in the cosmos or bestow His rationality and order on the cosmos when He created it?

Where is the contradiction in that?

Answer: there is no contradiction!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

God is not inherently bound by His own nature and is not bound to create things in accordance with His own nature?

That's your argument?

Answer: Yes, it is!

What's wrong with that argument?

Answer: everything!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is a perfect God bound by the imperatives of love and truth and rationality and order?

Answer: Yes, He is!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is God rational or is He irrational? He is rational!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is God bound by His nature of rationality and order? Yes or no?

Answer: Yes, He is!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

A: A = A.

God = Not-God?!
Is that your argument?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is that argument sensible?

Answer: No, it's not!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

God ≠ Not-God.

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

If our logic is wrong, then God is leading us to believe things about Him that are wrong, indeed, things that according to your logic don't even makes sense to us!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is your logic right?

Answer: No, it's not! It's incoherent and insane.

Indeed, it contradicts itself at every turn: for example, according to you, we can only believe truth, not know truth.

Are you asserting that as an absolutely true statement? Yes or no?

Answer: Yes, you are!

Hence, does your claim necessarily negate itself and positively prove the opposite is true?

Answer: Yes, it does!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Your logic is wrong, because the only thing that does make sense is the real logic of human cognition that just destroyed your nonsense, the logic that must be the eternally existing logic of God bestowed on us, not created!

Enough of this nonsense that the terms endow or bestow or confer are synonymous to the term create!

God did not create logic!

Yes, God created logic along with every other concept you've mentioned here. In the beginning, there was void... nothing. All the stuff you mention are concepts applied to a physical existence and reality and have no purpose or reason otherwise.

You are attempting to diminish God and you do this at your own peril. It destroys the arguments of TAG and the 7Things you posted before. But you can't see that because you are an arrogant human full of hubris, and think you know more than God. ...Ya don't!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hollie Unwittingly Refutes GT as She Affirms the Truth about the Prescriptive-Descriptive Dichotomy

Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers

Looky there! Hollie said something that's right!

Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.

Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature, as if logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does. Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?

Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if logic did not a priori provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.

Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.

Oh, wait! Don't do that after all! She finally got something right. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!

Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.

LOL! What boy, you dimwit? You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right! LOL! Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.

 

[G.T.]

Logic being descriptive doesnt make human minds come first before nature.

It makes the exact opposite true.

Of course, you'd have to be somewhat intelligent to understand that.

Let's explain?

Logic is a human made construct to describe reality.

Laws of logic are concepts which describe actual things. The properties of these actual things and how they behave exist, the concepts which are used to describe them are merely concepts.

an apple is incapable of being a banana at the same time and in the same way

the properties of the apple and how they behave make this true, the concept of logic doesnt make this true, it simply describes it.

It's not that hard.

Well, maybe it is.

 

[G.T.]

Nice stretch though, charlatan. I'm sure it will pass for..................

maybe justin.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Sorry, SB, you keep lumping me in with You/They.

I believe in consensus, remember?
Resolving conflicts directly with the parties involved so there ARE NO lawsuits taking sides
(which I believe is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the case of religious issues where BOTH sides are protected
equally and the courts/govt have NO BUSINESS taking one side over the other)

I believe in MEDIATING all such religious-based conflicts so that ALL SIDES/views/interests
agree they are equally included, represented and satisfied.

So my approach would PREVENT any of this bullying/lynching side taking behavior.

It would REWARD those people/leaders who can mediate and arrange for a consensus
resolution between parties as Constitutional, equally protective and equally inclusive!

Do you see WHY I push for this approach?
it is to PREVENT the unconstitutional lynching of one side by the other religiously.

This is why I push for Conflict resolution, mediation and consensus
as the Standard of Constitutional Law and Ethics especially in cases of religious conflicts.

I hope this is clear, because I feel I have been fighting this battle alone.

One friend said maybe 1 in 1,000 might understand my argument,
much less get it, much less advocate for it. I'm pretty much a minority
in my beliefs on consensus an dconsent of the governed as the standard of law.

Most people only want consent for themselves but will not defend the same of
others, especially not opponents! that is why our system is backlogged, abused and messed up.

I am one of the few people maybe 1-2% of the population that will advocate this openly for all
sides to be equally included, protected and represented.

Most people as neutral as me DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS because of their neutrality.
It is very rare to find other people willing to get involved who aren't pushing their agenda over someone else.

I am sure I have my own biases, but I try to make sure to check those by including the opposing views
equally so I remain fair and do not exclude or deny the objecting viewpoints to whatever position I have.

I believe the right answers will be supported by everyone,
and if there are objections those should be included and addressed.

a rare one indeed.

I thought I might go down in history as the world's rarest religion
or political religion. this belief in isonomy where all people, parties, beliefs and views
are to be treated and included equally -- where they are allowed to represent
themselves by affiliation of choice, and then mediate between them to form policies
they all agree to (or else agree to separate jurisdiction and funding). I believe in
a totally noncoercive, consent-based democratic process (close to what the
Greens practice, and the Zen peace activists and other nonviolence/noncoercive
activists believe in, also some Restorative Justice programs that work by voluntary consent)

Because I believe in consent and free choice, I don't impose my views
but just offer them freely. But people who believe in bullying step all over me
and other people I seek to defend on all sides. So I get smashed with the losing
side in any battle, trying to defend all people and points on all sides equally
and push for a consensus solution or separation in policy instead of conflicting interests.

Let me know if this is more clear.

Sealybobo, I think if you understood my position
you would either jump for joy
or weep and grieve for me.

It sounds dangerously naive to most people
who realize I'm going to get run over and smashed
by both sides of any conflict out to pummel the other.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hollie Unwittingly Refutes GT as She Affirms the Truth about the Prescriptive-Descriptive Dichotomy

Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers

Looky there! Hollie said something that's right!

Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.

Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature, as if logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does. Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?

Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if logic did not a priori provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.

Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.

Oh, wait! Don't do that after all! She finally got something right. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!

Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.

LOL! What boy, you dimwit? You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right! LOL! Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.

Dear M.D. Rawlings
So if Hollie wants to use science but recognizes this logic approach with TAG has naught to do with science, and you yourself also pointed this out -- that you were using the logic route INSTEAD of science since science can only verify not prove.

Then if you and Hollie are in AGREEMENT!
How does that make anyone an idiot or dimwit?

Why aren't you grateful that we actually AGREE?

So we can AGREE that using the science approach
is best for, say, the studies on spiritual healing.

Such research would be harmed by getting religion mixed into it.
You and I agree on that.

Now if we can get Hollie to agree that the
Spiritual Healing focus would make good use of the *Science* she wants to see,
we can direct the focus there for Hollie and people like her who WANT to see that approach
(and who have no connection or interest in the logic approach sans science)

This is a positive step to agree on this!
Can you see the positive potential and focus here?
I think this means it will work, to focus on the
science of spiritual healing to resolve issues with people
who WANT to see science used to verify something considered a spiritual process.

Isn't that good, M.D.?

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Boss

Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs

How about allowing that someone else's statement is Hypothetically true for the sake of argument.

In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.

At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.

I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented. I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.

What do you think?

Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.

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.

This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.

 

[emilynghiem]

Logic being descriptive doesnt make human minds come first before nature.

It makes the exact opposite true.

Of course, you'd have to be somewhat intelligent to understand that.

Let's explain?

Logic is a human made construct to describe reality.

Laws of logic are concepts which describe actual things. The properties of these actual things and how they behave exist, the concepts which are used to describe them are merely concepts.

an apple is incapable of being a banana at the same time and in the same way

the properties of the apple and how they behave make this true, the concept of logic doesnt make this true, it simply describes it.

It's not that hard.

Well, maybe it is.

Dear G.T. Boss (and also M.D. Rawlings and Justin)
I thought of a good example of how to illustrate
this distinction between human logic, God's logic, and how we as humans can top into God's logic that is higher than our own.

Forgiveness!

This seems counterintuitive and goes against human logic.
Our material/manmade/self-serving laws of survival
tell us to treat those who are good with rewards
and punish those who are bad with rejection or retaliation.

However, the highest principles in Buddhism (on equal compassion for all beings regardless of material conditions)
and in Christianity call us to
love one another as God does, as Jesus loves with unconditional acceptance and forgiveness.

This requires a leap in logic and faith that this
forgiveness will not be abused.

Our human fear and logic says that forgiveness
will enable or encourage more abuse by not punishing the person.

But the higher laws show that by forgiving first,
people have more clear minds and consistent authority
to rebuke and correct than if we are attached or angry emotionally
and impair our judgment.

So by God's laws, we are supposed to "trust" in the higher laws
of justice to work themselves out if we let go and forgive
and do not try to dictate the process ourselves.

But man is prone to try to dictate and control justice,
and that's why our political system is such a mess.

The successful systems of restorative justice focus on
healing and forgiveness first, then the correction and restitution follows.

This is God's laws, but runs counter-intuitive to what man's justice tells us to do.

So M.D. and Justin as Christians
believe that this Perfect justice of God, perfect will and truth that Jesus represents
CAN be embodied in man, we CAN embrace and let this Higher Justice of God
govern our consciences and relationships.

Boss was saying we cannot know what is God's logic (or justice/laws)
if these are beyond man.

So this is where the Christian faith steps in.

Where I believe this intersects with secular humanist/natural approaches to law
is CONSENSUS and Consent of the Governed.

So we CAN verify among ourselves what we know/believe to be truth/justice
by reaching Consensus with each other.

So the Christians will be satisfied that the outcome matches what they feel/believe/know as God's will
and this Secularists will be satisfied that the outcome meets their standards of what
is "free choice' and 'equal justice" for all.

by consensus we can meet all these standards
even if we don't individually agree how to justify or rationalize the reasons for why we agree to the outcome!

I think this is one place wherel
we could see the difference and the relationship
between man's laws/logic/justice and higher/collective/God's laws of logic and justice.

the whole point is to reconcile our individual levels with the collective shared level of justice
and in this way, establish a common understanding of truth so there is peace and harmony.

it does not mean we have to convert each other's views,
just find ways to include each other without compromising.

 

[emilynghiem]

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.

To me little conflicts are like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.

I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.

I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
but after that emotional steam blows off,
M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.

So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.

Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.

And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!

 

[G.T.]

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.

To me little conflicts are like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.

I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.

I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
but after that emotional steam blows off,
M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.

So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.

Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.

And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!

are you copy pasting the same posts over and over and over again and expecting different results?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, why is that not true?
No, I know I do.

That other stuff was just for fun. Just kidding around with you.

So that's great. You know that you exist. So why do you believe God exists? Just wondering. You got to have a reason right?

Many gawds exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature.

Dear Hollie: We can have 50 state laws that are all different and have local authority and jurisdiction.
and yet still have one "law of the land" for all people of all states to be under, and one in spirit.

the Lords or Laws of local tribes/states
do not have to be in conflict with the Universal Law that all people agree to follow.

in fact, these SHOULD be in harmony and not in conflict.
the gods in religions are the same way, either in harmony and under one authority,
or if they are in conflict, those conflicts need to be addressed and resolved.

When there is a conflict with Texas law or federal law,
we do not void one law or the other law to resolve the conflict:
we resolve the conflict so that both laws can coexist consistently.

^ Dear Justin and M.D. Rawlings ^
Does this help explain relative views?

That Texas law can list statutes and mandates,
penal codes and civil procedures differently from Alaskan law,
and yet all state laws are still under the Constitution as the law of the land?
so we can have both absolute agreed givens that everyone follows as the basis,
and also have relative laws that people agree to follow locally. And these do not contradict each other.

^ Does this help at all ? ^

 

[emilynghiem]

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.

To me little conflicts are like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.

I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.

I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
but after that emotional steam blows off,
M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.

So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.

Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.

And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!

are you copy pasting the same posts over and over and over again and expecting different results?

What? That is the first and only time I saw you bring up OCD
and the only time I answered it. What are you talking about?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

if you take God to equal = forces in life or nature
yes, most people believe there are some kind of forces of life and nature
at work that are outside man's direct control
and the whole point is to reconcile with free will and reason / logic
that is within man's control

Most human beings I know go through some
process of reconciling these things, unconsciously or consciously.

We just don't all agree on the nature of these forces,
and how to represent them using science, religion, political secular laws, etc.

 

[G.T.]

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.

To me little conflicts are like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.

I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.

I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
but after that emotional steam blows off,
M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.

So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.

Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.

And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!

are you copy pasting the same posts over and over and over again and expecting different results?

What? That is the first and only time I saw you bring up OCD
and the only time I answered it. What are you talking about?

I asked if you continue copy pasting and quoting yourself. Hundreds of times, literally. Do you?

MD does.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss is Refuted!

I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.

I'm going to concentrate on this self-aggrandizing portion of your post.

I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true. I have not personally attacked you. I refuted your notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition and that the objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin necessarily anthropomorphize God, when if fact the only coherently defensible conclusion is that God theologized us, that the logic we have is His logic, not created, but bestowed on us.

You have not responded by directly addressing the problems with your notion exposed by my observations. You have responded with straw men and with the increasingly obtuse/evasive belligerence and derision of piggish pride.

Enough of your mealy mouthed blather. You have been refuted! Your closed-minded, dogmatic fanaticism that would arbitrarily preclude the only rational conclusion has been refuted.

Justin is absolutely correct. There is no historically prominent system of theistic thought that agrees with your retarded blather. None of the theistic systems of thought of a total or of a partial transcendence for divnity (immanentheism, deism, panentheism), whether they be monotheistic or polytheistic, holds that divinity created logic. No form of pantheism holds that God created logic. No learned Jew, Christian or Muslim holds that God created logic. Neither the Torah, the Bible nor the Koran holds that God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosophy or theology that holds God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosopher or theologian who holds that God created logic. Even the inarguably pagan polytheism of Buddhism and Hinduism do not hold that divinity created logic. Not even the esoteric mysticism of the Gnostics holds that God created logic. Rather, all of these systems of theistic thought hold that divinity's logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!

Why?

Because the notion that logic was created by divinity rather than bestowed on the creation contradicts the universally absolute principle of identity bioneurologically hardwired in humans! It is not rationally, let alone empirically, possible to demonstrate that logic was created by divinity. Your notion is retarded blather that does not hold up logically; it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the very opposite to be true. You are a retard blathering nonsense.

You are counted among the retarded theists of history, not the rational theists of history.

You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity; you're not going to sell your retarded blather around here that the overwhelming and only rational opinion of history is barking madness while your idiocy is peaches and cream. Your retarded blather is not peaches and cream. It's barking madness.

According to the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, logic could not have been created by God! God is the very substance and the ground of Logic! He bestowed His logic on the creation! The organic laws of thought, the logic of natural and moral law, the logic of the physical laws of nature are God's logic bestowed on the creation, not created. Or according to the various forms of pantheism, God bestowed His logic on the universe in its creation and then infused Himself with the universe.



You were refuted here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153885/


And here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10141668/


And here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/


And here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149386/


And here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139234/




The ramifications of Gödel's theorems and proof refute you:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138400/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138418/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10144163/




The ramifications of the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy refute you:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134155/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134182/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153980/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153941/




The ramifications of the incontrovertible proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, the foundation of absolute objectivity in logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science refute you:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138804/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/




You refute yourself every time you contradictorily concede that The Seven Things (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/) hold, for their logical ramifications necessarily hold that logic was bestowed on creation, not created.

You are refuted again in this post.

You will be refuted again in my summary.

Only fools would grant your retarded blather any credibility; indeed, you cite the very same fools who necessarily argued against your retarded blather earlier on this thread, persons, like you, who do not grasp the ramifications of their earlier refutations of your retarded blather. They are idiots. The only reason they grant your crap any credence is because you are now arguing against me, their nemesis.

You and your butt buddies are refuted!

Your retarded blather is refuted!

You are refuted!

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey Boss

Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs

How about allowing that someone else's statement is Hypothetically true for the sake of argument.

In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.

At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.

I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented. I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.

What do you think?

Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.

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.

This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.

Dear amrchaos:
1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss is Refuted!

Dear M.D. Rawlings
I'm glad we are moving toward getting the uncivil reactions out of the way
and focusing on interesting points where we can remain civil and focus intelligently.

Can you please reply to the post on Forgiveness
as an example of where God's logic trumps man's logic?

I think that will spell out where these diverge
and where we rely on connection in Christ or Conscience
to rise above man's retributive nature and seek
higher peace through restorative justice and love of truth.

Thanks!
maybe if we give a concrete example
we can talk these things out instead of going in circles with the terms
==================================
here is the post on forgiveness recopied below:

"Dear G.T. Boss (and also M.D. Rawlings and Justin)
I thought of a good example of how to illustrate
this distinction between human logic, God's logic, and how we as humans can top into God's logic that is higher than our own.

Forgiveness!

This seems counterintuitive and goes against human logic.
Our material/manmade/self-serving laws of survival
tell us to treat those who are good with rewards
and punish those who are bad with rejection or retaliation.

However, the highest principles in Buddhism (on equal compassion for all beings regardless of material conditions)
and in Christianity call us to
love one another as God does, as Jesus loves with unconditional acceptance and forgiveness.

This requires a leap in logic and faith that this
forgiveness will not be abused.

Our human fear and logic says that forgiveness
will enable or encourage more abuse by not punishing the person.

But the higher laws show that by forgiving first,
people have more clear minds and consistent authority
to rebuke and correct than if we are attached or angry emotionally
and impair our judgment.

So by God's laws, we are supposed to "trust" in the higher laws
of justice to work themselves out if we let go and forgive
and do not try to dictate the process ourselves.

But man is prone to try to dictate and control justice,
and that's why our political system is such a mess.

The successful systems of restorative justice focus on
healing and forgiveness first, then the correction and restitution follows.

This is God's laws, but runs counter-intuitive to what man's justice tells us to do.

So M.D. and Justin as Christians
believe that this Perfect justice of God, perfect will and truth that Jesus represents
CAN be embodied in man, we CAN embrace and let this Higher Justice of God
govern our consciences and relationships.

Boss was saying we cannot know what is God's logic (or justice/laws)
if these are beyond man.

So this is where the Christian faith steps in.

Where I believe this intersects with secular humanist/natural approaches to law
is CONSENSUS and Consent of the Governed.

So we CAN verify among ourselves what we know/believe to be truth/justice
by reaching Consensus with each other.

So the Christians will be satisfied that the outcome matches what they feel/believe/know as God's will
and this Secularists will be satisfied that the outcome meets their standards of what
is "free choice' and 'equal justice" for all.

by consensus we can meet all these standards
even if we don't individually agree how to justify or rationalize the reasons for why we agree to the outcome!

I think this is one place wherel
we could see the difference and the relationship
between man's laws/logic/justice and higher/collective/God's laws of logic and justice.

the whole point is to reconcile our individual levels with the collective shared level of justice
and in this way, establish a common understanding of truth so there is peace and harmony.

it does not mean we have to convert each other's views,
just find ways to include each other without compromising."

 

[emilynghiem]

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.

To me little conflicts are like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.

I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.

I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
but after that emotional steam blows off,
M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.

So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.

Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.

And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!

are you copy pasting the same posts over and over and over again and expecting different results?

What? That is the first and only time I saw you bring up OCD
and the only time I answered it. What are you talking about?

I asked if you continue copy pasting and quoting yourself. Hundreds of times, literally. Do you?

MD does.

No I try to only keep the quote I am reply to, and say something relating the new points brought up.

With MD. we just need to direct the focus toward points that are getting somewhere.

so out of the haystack find the needle that can carry a steady thread....