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

[Boss]

Yes Justin... Everyone is a sociopath except for you and Rawlings!

WAFFLES???

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole.

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...

Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude.

As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've LOST me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your 7-Things argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that!

You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.

Give it time, Boss.
The blowhardedness will blow over.

People are releasing steam
probably because this is the first time we have enough people
willing to be this transparent and not give up, cut and run.

People here are still trying, so we will outlast the blasting phase.

Justin and MD will run out of the bad steam
and will stick to the points that work.

Everyone's bringing up baggage from issues with theists and atheists from the past.
That isn't going to last. there is only so much old garbage to dump
and when we're done cleaning out all our closets and attics,
maybe we'll get to the treasures stored that actually have timeless value.

Thanks, Boss
as you and I work to forgive and let go,
M.D. and Justin will also. Just let the steam blow over,
let the storm blow through, this too shall pass.
And we will get to better and brighter days ahead!

Nah. Boss is the blowhard. His idea is so obviously stupid a child could see through it. His pride is sociopathic. What kind of religions but cults spew his crap? Boss has probably got himself a harem of hoes and bros under his thumb right now. The Cult leader of Created Logic, Made Up Logic, Phony Logic, Goofy Logic, No Logic, My Logic So There. The religion of Bossism or the religion of Human Logicism.

Unfortunately, Justin, this seems to be the case, not necessarily the more satirical comments. But his sociopathic pride and his cultish obsession with a notion that is so obviously indefensible is just sick, disgusting. He leaves me no choice but to repost the refutations to his insanity every time he fails to acknowledge, at the very least, that he could be wrong . . . especially given the fact that he is arguing against the overwhelming position of the philosophical and theological thought in history on this issue, calling that position crazy, something that couldn't be right, not even a little bit. LOL! The man's an utter lunatic.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.

Boss's pride is sociopathic.

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!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.

Boss's pride is sociopathic.


The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy

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


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


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


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

Or:

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

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

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



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



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

Or:

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

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Boss

You really don't know what is going on with some of these "angry atheist", do you?

Let me give you some insight

The 5 Stages of Loss and Grief Psych Central

....and 'God' is that friend they lost!

Talk about 'my' atheism. OK
Deconvert someone?--No No No!! Not me!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.

Boss' pride is sociopathic.


More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity


Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as properly executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.

The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include all of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.

In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, pretend they don't exist:

1. Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
2. Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
3. God created human beings.
4. Human beings have logic.
5. Hence, God created logic.

That syllogism does not jump from an A to a non sequiturial B, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap: God created everything; hence, God created logic. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.

Boss' pride is sociopathic.


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!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hey Boss

You really don't know what is going on with some of these "angry atheist", do you?

Let me give you some insight

The 5 Stages of Loss and Grief Psych Central

....and 'God' is that friend they lost!

Talk about 'my' atheism. OK
Deconvert someone?--No No No!! Not me!!

Boss' pride is sociopathic. He's a already a pathologically angry theist, pissed at the world of the real theism historically and logically rejecting his cultish bull. Boss is no theist. He's a cultist. His god is himself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ok emily--

About 1

Some problems to address

When you talk about "spirit" to someone that may not believe in supernatural things is generally a no go.

The best way I deal with the word "spirit" is to directly equate it to the mind, or some aspect of the mind such as personality or character depending on context.

Note that this is generally not what most theist mean. There is something else theist may refer to when they talk about "spirit" and "spiritual matters". However I first got this notion from a theist(forgot his name--I should look it up for reference) that claimed the spirit contains the mind.

Also note that when we begin to talk of the after life, what happens to the spirit/mind diverges between theist and non-theist, between non-theist and atheist, between individual non-theist, and between individual atheists. As long as you wish to stay away from the after life topic, there should not be much problem with the use of "spirit/spiritual" as long as the context used allows one to interchange with the term "mind/psychology" in either way.

I think taking this viewpoint will this topic to progress--However, the constant interchanging between terms can produce a very quirky dialogue.

You already know where the skeptics with any interest about this topic are going for their understanding: Psychology is the science. and, s strange as it my sound, there is research on how a healthy attitude can help people heal from different types of affliction.

The problem is: Is the research any good.

About 2)
I find MD's presentation of "logic" questionable.

I doubt that any change of approach will redeem MD's TAG.

About 3)

I responded to this: given the amount of information I do have, all I can say is "I don't know"


PS
That reference about "sheeps and goats"--I admit, is not something I wish to do nor will I.

If we are going to use a biblical term to describe what is going on(independent of what I do or have done)--then it is really a stoning.

The offenders are identified. The circle already formed. The rocks have been tossed.

From this, I am realizing that stoning was a really messy ordeal.

WWJD? He would try to stop the stoning.

If you notice, I am not exactly doing what Jesus would do, now am I?

Amrchoas doesn't even know what the TAG is.


Amrchaos Mocks Himself!

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 Transcendental Argument?!

What a fool you are you! Those who 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 that, once again, 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 out 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."​

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

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More of Amrchaos' Relativistic Silliness Refuted

I'm sorry, but the your premise is not well-founded, and the emboldened portion of your post does not follow.

First of all, when scientists say that the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level defy our normal perception of things at the Newtonian level of physics, they're speaking informally. They don't mean that the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level are in actuality irrational, incomprehensible or even inconsistent with the currently revised edition of Newtonian physics.

But to understand why all of the above is true we begin with the correct philosophical understanding of things.

Assuming I understand you correctly, if we were to all go along with what you're suggesting, we'd be going backwards in our understanding of things, not forward, and we'd be doing so in defiance of what the laws of thought (comprehensively, the principle of identity) are telling us to be true. In other words, the laws of thought are not confounded by these phenomena at all. How could that be true? If what you're suggesting were true, in effect, that scientific methodology precedes or has primacy over logic, over agency, how could we possibly know what the reasonably practical hypothetical propositions would be or understand what experimentation is telling us about these things, let alone understand what they are in fact doing in terms of their characteristics?

Science does not have and never will have primacy over logic and, by extension, over the philosophy of science. That's simply not possible. That's not the order of things. It's axiomatic that we begin with what is known about things and what might be possible about things via the laws of thought, which inform us how to go about intuiting the right hypotheses in order to advance our knowledge about these things.

The question is do we or do we not know what these things are doing?

Answer: Yes! It's the laws of thought coupled with the universally applicable language of mathematics that allow us to know what they're doing and, to a lesser extent, how they're doing it.

So in science with the laws of thought and using the language of mathematics we can know what things are doing. In science, we will always know less about how they're doing it and never anything about why they are. To know the why one would have to be willing to allow for and go to theology.

If you'll stay with me, I'll indisputably prove what should already be self-evident out to you in my next post.

(Of course, he didn't stay with me, but ran and never even attempted to refute this or what follows.)

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More of Amrchaos' Relativistic Silliness Refuted


Amrchaos: "I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?"

(Ah! There's the first sign of Amrchoas's ill-considered mockery, in truth, his ignorance on display for all to see.)


What the normal characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics are ≠ the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics are abnormal, irrational or incomprehensible.

That just doesn't follow.

What is a normal characteristic?

Answer: whatever the normal characteristic is for any given thing, for any given A: A = A, the law of identity, as distinguished from any other given thing, NOT (A = NOT-A), the law of contradiction. Things are what they are.

Your notion would be an arbitrarily subjective assessment of things that (1) assumes the current lack of a unifying theory = actual incoherence and that (2) the apparent characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics have primacy over the perfectly rational characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics, when in fact, foundationally, the order of primacy is the converse.

The fact of the matter is that we now know enough about the connection between these two levels, as we get ever-closer to a unifying theory, that it's precisely because phenomena at the subatomic level behave as they do, we have stability and solidity at the Newtonian level of physics!

The various constituents of subatomic physics are what they are and do not contradict the various constituents of the Newtonian level of physics. A: A = A.

We are not assuming any model of incomprehensibility at all, and today we do not begin with our apparent perspective at the Newtonian level of physics. We begin at the foundational, subatomic level of physics and go from there. Why? Because we know better today: the physics at the subatomic level precede the former in the order of cause-and-effect origin and necessity.

Neither our lack of knowledge nor the points at which the various, explanatory theories breakdown = the breakdown of the foundationally immutable laws of organic thought. They hold. The calculi of quantum physics are perfectly rational and comprehensible, and we learn more and more each day as we close the gap in our understanding between the points of breakdown.

Actually, these points of "breakdown" from the perspective of our current store of knowledge are not surprising at all, as the various systems of physics for the cosmos, individually and collectively, are doing things that serve to hold the whole together. We know this to be true, for while we may not know the details that close the gaps between the various systems of physics within the larger system, we've done the math about what would happen if any one of the given systems of physics were removed from the whole. . . Bad news. Everything collapses. In other words, we know there's a perfectly rational, unifying physics for the whole.

As many have observed, the cosmos is a complex proof, just like the complex proofs in calculus, consisting of a multiple number of theorems/proofs, each arising from it's own premise, within the grand, all-inclusive theorem/proof resting on the foundational premise for the whole. We're working on the cosmological proof. That’s all.

As for virtual particles, appearing and disappearing, perhaps even popping in and out of existence as far as we can tell from our perspective of things on this side of the quantum fields, or subatomic particles occupying up to an infinite number of places simultaneously, what about these phenomena, precisely, causes you to think that they defy a creation model?

I don't see that at all. On the contrary, these things and the dynamics of the quantum vacuum as a whole have profound transcendental implications! And the reason who've failed to see this is because you wrongfully and unscientifically hold that the Newtonian level of physics has primacy over the subatomic level of physics, as you wrongfully and unscientifically assume from ignorance that there is no unifying rational when in fact we know there is.

Your error is a man (Amrchaos) in the gap fallacy.

Delta4Emabasy knows what he's talking about too in posts #1068 and #1072.

 

[BreezeWood]

These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.

Boss's pride is sociopathic.


The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy

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


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


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


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

Or:

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

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

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



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



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

Or:

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

christianity

mdr in the gap,

logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!


by divinity -

the antithesis, neither created nor bestowed or controlled - by anything, universally free for whomever pleases.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More of Amrchaos' Relativistic Silliness Refuted


But remember at the subatomic level of quantum physics, the rules change because the premise changes, but the math has no problem following. We still have the same basic principles of subtraction and addition, for example. We just know that things jump and pop and move, appear and disappear, albeit, in a rational and semi-predictable way in terms of providing stability and solidity for the Newtonian level of our everyday perception of things. In other words, the same basic principles of math hold up; they just have to be applied in such way that they "jump and pop and move, appear and disappear" with the phenomena.

In fact, we have learned enough now that we can sometimes predict where electrons will pop up next or the places they will simultaneously occupy, from one moment to the next, depending on the conditions. But we still have a lot more to learn before we can do it every time, and we do know we can do it every time, eventually, with more knowledge.

We now know that the so-called uncertainty principle is actually an inherent characteristic of wave-like systems, a basic property of quantum phenomena, not an issue of observation as previously thought, though technology can cause problems. So we're working on better technologies that are less and less intrusive, that let us see what's happening without causing things to happen as a result of the effects of the technology used to observe.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.

Sociopath

How old are, nitwit? 15?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Universal Principle of Human Relations


Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at. We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews. We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case. Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence: Judeo-Christianity or Islam. These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.

Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation. This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who are willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who are willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things. But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.

Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is nature, not God.

The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought is invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

christianity

mdr in the gap,

logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!


by divinity -

the antithesis, neither created nor bestowed or controlled - by anything, universally free for whomever pleases.

The Rudeness of the Subjective Relativist is Ineducable

I'm proceeding from the philosophically generic, highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that doesn't beg the question, while you (BreezeWood in the gap = pantheism/panentheism) would arbitrarily preclude it because you're an obnoxiously stupid, closed-minded, intellectual bigot, a religiously dogmatic fanatic who doesn't have enough sense to know that the foundation of absolute objectivity doesn't preclude the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism.

This has been explained to you several times, but you just blow that off being the intellectual thug that you are. Your statist mindset screams at me loud and clear. Your a political leftist, a collectivist, a progressive, aren't you?

("Gosh. How does he know that?")

You don't even comprehend the fact that I'm objectively upholding the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism via the generic, philosophical proof of the compound reductio ad absurdum as you contradict the central tenet of pantheism/panentheism: the immanent, universal principle of identity and the cosmos are one and the same thing.

Look how silly you are as you go all knee-jerk reactionary and foolishly argue against the potentiality of your very own religion.

I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise. When have you ever respectfully backed out of your paradigm and discussed the potentialities from the neutral perspective of the absolute laws of thought?

We're more than 4500 posts into this and you haven't once shown the slightest interest in trying to understand anything outside the perspective of your entrenched bias.

You're the rude, ill-mannered pig. Enough of your mealy mouthed guff, boy. Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.

Are you even aware of this post: The Universal Principle of Human Relations, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157487/?

 

[Justin Davis]

And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.

Sociopath

How old are, nitwit? 15?

You don't seem to bring much to the table. The OP is on the classical arguments for God existence. That's the issue. You don't seem to have much interest. Why are you here?

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole.

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...

Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude.

As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've LOST me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your 7-Things argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that!

You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.

You just got all butt hurt because we didn't go along with your crazy cult talk that nobody's ever heard and doesn't make any sense like the brainwashed hoes and bros you got under your thumb, cult leader. No human can believe or know truth but you, right?

Do you even hear yourself, cult leader? "Oh, you know, humans can only believe but can't know anything, and that's a fact because I know it's a fact. I'm special." Cult leader.Special knowledge.

Everybody worship Boss or he gets mad if you tell him he doesn't know the things that he says no one else knows but him, and that solipsist armchaos drinks the koolaid too.

All of the world's religions are wrong but Jonestown Boss is right.


I'm going to start calling you Jonestown Boss, okay all knowing one?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.

Sociopath

How old are, nitwit? 15?

You don't seem to bring much to the table. The OP is on the classical arguments for God existence. That's the issue. You don't seem to have much interest. Why are you here?

Ummm...to irritate irritating people like you? That's a pretty good reason.

 

[Inevitable]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.