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

[Taz]

The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!


1. The Divine Law of Identity

God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A. Hence, God = Boss.

Check!​

2. The Divine Law of Contradiction

God holds that for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A). Hence, the propositions that 2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss, and 2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion are all true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

Check!​

3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle

God holds that for all A: A AND ~A. Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time: Boss is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is not crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.

(Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially. Boss clearly is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only. Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on. But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.)

Check!​

Again, we see a flurry of jargon supposedly signifying something Boss has argued. It is amazingly pathetic that someone of such grandiose verbiage is inclined to spend so much time attacking with outright slander, a fellow believer in God, in a thread where he is surreptitiously attempting to convince those who don't.

It is difficult to understand until you realize what has happened. My argument, which he can't refute, has touched a nerve. Being completely unable to respond rationally, he has taken to the tactic of personal destruction. What he doesn't seem to understand is, he can't destroy me any more than he can destroy my argument. Which, by the way, is nowhere near as complicated at he tries so desperately to make it sound.

In the beginning there was void. God created the universe and every aspect of it. This includes all parameters, laws, pricniples, thoughts, philosophies and concepts of the human mind. There is nothing God didn't create or wasn't capable of creating because God is omnipotent.

Is this based on fact or fantasy?

 

[Boss]

Is this based on fact or fantasy?

It's based on faith, Taz.

Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only believe we know truth.

 

[G.T.]

Is this based on fact or fantasy?

It's based on faith, Taz.

Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only believe we know truth.

How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take.

Using these:

Axiom:

As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

True:

in accordance with fact

controversy:

disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.




And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And here we get to see what happens when you challenge the narcissistic. They simply imply you said things that were not said. They type page-long diatribes based on these lies, and pretend they have accomplished something. You can read through Justin's post and find not one word of truth when it comes to his claims of what I have argued here. This cannot be unintentional or a misunderstanding. It is a quite intended smear campaign, designed for one intent and purpose.

Now you must ask yourself, why would these two clowns be going to such bizarre extremes to destroy the credibility of someone who supposedly believes in the same spiritual God they promote? It is because they are threatened by something I have said. In this case, it appears to be the logic that God bestowed upon man, which God created for man to use in his understanding of the universe. This poses a problem for the intellectual high-brow arguments posed by the narcissist. It doesn't let them be 'above' God for the sake of argumentation.

No, you braying jackass! Yours is the tale of a pathological liar who was given ample opportunity to come clean and admit his error. Instead, you chose to shamelessly go on and on about a stupidity that neither you nor any other human being in the world can coherently explain the how of. Or perhaps yours is the tale of a lunatic who is too stupid to grasp the ramifications of what he's been telling himself all his life because he's never stopped to think about the ramifications of what he's been spouting all his life.

Which is it?

You most certainly did express the idea that God doesn't need or use logic, doesn't have a mind or consciousness like we do, because God is all-knowing, whatever that means. I can quote you! Or to be fair to you, did you mean to say that God doesn't have a mind or a consciousness like ours, and that God's logic is not our logic, that God's logic is different than our logic, that God's logic is not bound by our logic?

Either way, you're making claims about things that neither you nor any other human being in the world could possibly know to be true for sure or rationally defend as being true for sure as based on any objective standard of belief. Clearly, the only objectively rational thing we can say about God's consciousness or mind without begging the question, without arbitrarily precluding what is logically possible as if we had some secrete knowledge, would be the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, which would entail self-awareness, not just the possibility of some mindless force or some mindless, albeit, merged rational as in pantheism or panentheism, isn't that so?

In other words, the only thing we can objectively state without begging the question and because we cannot think that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be a divine Entity mindlessly unaware of itself: God must have a mind/consciousness of self-awareness like ours, albeit, unlike ours, one that is infinitely great.

In any event, you have clearly stated something like the emboldened in the above, though it's hard to tell because with you it's like does God have a mind, a consciousness, or not? Does God have logic or not? One thing we do know for sure: you claim that the logic we have was created, not bestowed on us by God.

Hence, if the logic we have was created then it could not have existed before. Ergo, our logic is not like God's, right? Yes? No? Maybe?

Now's the time to clarify what you're saying.

Yeah. See the real problem here is that you know damn well it makes no sense to say that our logic was created. The laws of organic logic necessarily hold that either nature or God bestowed the logic we have on us.

If God does not exist, then the term created is meaningless, as that term presupposes a Creator!

If God the Creator does exist as organic logic axiomatically holds, then the logic we have was not created, but must be the eternally existent logic of God bestowed on us, for we cannot rationally explain how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right? Since God, by definition, is not an entity that was created, but eternally self-subsistent, God's logic must have always existed in Him, or, at the very least, preexisted in Him before it was bestowed on us, isn't that right?

I repeat: you cannot explain how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, can you?

Huh?

Can you?

You just believe something inexplicable, something rationally and empirically indemonstrable, don't you?

You don't know any such absurdity to be true, do you?

You are a liar and an idiot and a hypocrite falsely accusing me, aren't you?

I don't pretend to know how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?

You and some of your idiotic buddies are the only ones around here pretending to know how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?

So tell us what God's logic is if it's not for any given A: A = A, for any two or more propositions NOT (A = NOT-A) or for all A: A OR ~A.

Tells us!

Explain it!

I dare you!

I double dare you! LOL!

 

[Boss]

Is this based on fact or fantasy?

It's based on faith, Taz.

Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only believe we know truth.

How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take.

Using these:

Axiom:

As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

True:

in accordance with fact

controversy:

disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.


And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?

In essence, everything you believe is based on faith. It doesn't matter that you define it as an axiom. That is simply a testament to the degree of faith you have in your belief.

You see... I believe in a God who is smarter than Rawlings. Logic doesn't control my God. The parameters of human thought are never more powerful than God. So we can all argue back and forth about what we believe or don't believe, it all boils down to our faith.

 

[G.T.]

Is this based on fact or fantasy?

It's based on faith, Taz.

Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only believe we know truth.

How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take.

Using these:

Axiom:

As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

True:

in accordance with fact

controversy:

disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.


And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?

In essence, everything you believe is based on faith. It doesn't matter that you define it as an axiom. That is simply a testament to the degree of faith you have in your belief.

You see... I believe in a God who is smarter than Rawlings. Logic doesn't control my God. The parameters of human thought are never more powerful than God. So we can all argue back and forth about what we believe or don't believe, it all boils down to our faith.

So when you see something called a logical proof,

but then say "if anyone could prove god, there would be no threads such as this" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).



edited to fix a direct quote.

 

[G.T.]

And here we get to see what happens when you challenge the narcissistic. They simply imply you said things that were not said. They type page-long diatribes based on these lies, and pretend they have accomplished something. You can read through Justin's post and find not one word of truth when it comes to his claims of what I have argued here. This cannot be unintentional or a misunderstanding. It is a quite intended smear campaign, designed for one intent and purpose.

Now you must ask yourself, why would these two clowns be going to such bizarre extremes to destroy the credibility of someone who supposedly believes in the same spiritual God they promote? It is because they are threatened by something I have said. In this case, it appears to be the logic that God bestowed upon man, which God created for man to use in his understanding of the universe. This poses a problem for the intellectual high-brow arguments posed by the narcissist. It doesn't let them be 'above' God for the sake of argumentation.

No, you braying jackass! Yours is the tale of a pathological liar who was given ample opportunity to come clean and admit his error. Instead, you chose to shamelessly go on and on about a stupidity that neither you nor any other human being in the world can coherently explain the how of. Or perhaps yours is the tale of a lunatic who is too stupid to grasp the ramifications of what he's been telling himself all his life because he's never stopped to think about the ramifications of what he's been spouting all his life.

Which is it?

You most certainly did express the idea that God doesn't need or use logic, doesn't have a mind or consciousness like we do, because God is all-knowing, whatever that means. I can quote you! Or to be fair to you, did you mean to say that God doesn't have a mind or a consciousness like ours, and that God's logic is not our logic, that God's logic is different than our logic, that God's logic is not bound by our logic?

Either way, you're making claims about things that neither you nor any other human being in the world could possibly know to be true for sure or rationally defend as being true for sure as based on any objective standard of belief. Clearly, the only objectively rational thing we can say about God's consciousness or mind without begging the question, without arbitrarily precluding what is logically possible as if we had some secrete knowledge, would be the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, which would entail self-awareness, not just the possibility of some mindless force or some mindless, albeit, merged rational as in pantheism or panentheism, isn't that so?

In any event, you have clearly stated something like the emboldened in the above, though it's hard to tell because with you as it's like does God have a mind, consciousness, or not? Does God have logic or not? One thing we do know for sure: you claim that the logic we have was created, not bestowed on us by God.

Hence, if the logic we have was created then it could not have existed before. Ergo, our logic is not like God's, right? Yes? No? Maybe?

Now's the time to clarify what you're saying.

Yeah. See the real problem here is that you know damn well it makes no sense to say that our logic was created. The laws of organic logic necessarily hold that either nature or God bestowed the logic we have on us.

If God does not exist, then the term created is meaningless, as that term presupposes a Creator!

If God the Creator does exist as organic logic axiomatically holds, then the logic we have was not created, but must be the eternally existent logic of God bestowed on us, for we cannot rationally explain how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right? Since God, by definition, is not an entity that was created, but eternally self-subsistent, God's logic must have always existed in Him, or, at the very least, preexisted in Him before it was bestowed on us, isn't that right?

I repeat: you cannot explain how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, can you?

Huh?

Can you?

You just believe something inexplicable, something rationally and empirically indemonstrable, don't you?

You don't know any such absurdity to be true, do you?

You are a liar and an idiot and a hypocrite falsely accusing me, aren't you?

I don't pretend to know how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?

You and some of your idiotic buddies are the only ones around here pretending to know how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?

So tell us what God's logic is if it's not for any given A: A = A, for any two or more propositions NOT (A = NOT-A) or for all A: A OR ~A.

Tells us!

Explain it!

I dare you!

I double dare you! LOL!

ad hom

lacks precision

lacks being concise

emotional based

repetative

 

[Boss]

You most certainly did express the idea that God doesn't need or use logic, doesn't have a mind or consciousness like we do, because God is all-knowing, whatever that means. I can quote you! Or to be fair to you, did you mean to say that God doesn't have a mind or a consciousness like ours, and that God's logic is not our logic, that God's logic is different than our logic, that God's logic is not bound by our logic?

God is not bound by ANY construct of the human mind which God created. Dufus! Not only is this counter-intuitive, it relegates God to sub-human status. You're trying to argue that God has to behave according to our logical thoughts of how God should behave. That's simply rubbish if you believe in an omnipotent God.

God does not have any need for sentience or a conscious mind, those are attributes God bestowed upon humans. Likewise, God has no reason for logic, which is a construct of human thought. You attempt to apply these to God because you cannot comprehend God otherwise. It's not your fault, you're human and humans rationalize things. It's precisely what brought forth religions from our intrinsic spiritual awareness of God.

You've simply become lost in your own ramblings. You are arguing for a God who is bound and constrained by the parameters of human thought, which makes God NOT omnipotent.

 

[Boss]

So when you see something called a logical proof,

but then say "there is no proof" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).

Again... there is no "proof" logical or otherwise. MD and Justin are free to argue whatever they please, and I am free to disagree with their premises. When we label something "logical proof" what do we mean by that? That our parameters of human thought have looked at the evidence and believe something to be true, based on our understanding and faith in the evidence. It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.

 

[G.T.]

So when you see something called a logical proof,

but then say "there is no proof" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).

Again... there is no "proof" logical or otherwise. MD and Justin are free to argue whatever they please, and I am free to disagree with their premises. When we label something "logical proof" what do we mean by that? That our parameters of human thought have looked at the evidence and believe something to be true, based on our understanding and faith in the evidence. It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.

So then you disagree afterall that TAG serves as an absolute.

Really, I knew you to be a bit more rational than what TAGgers say TAG proves as an absolute, but I wanted to make sure we weren't talking past each other. I think we're on the same page.

TAG is a good argument for those who already presuppose God, it is not an absolute proof that god exists. We agree?

 

[Justin Davis]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

What a total phony. I asked you if you existed, punk. You said that you know you existed, punk. I asked how you came to exist, punk. "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk? You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk. You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk. Those are the options, punk.

 

[G.T.]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

What a total phony. I asked you if you existed, punk. You said that you know you existed, punk. I asked how you came to exist, punk. "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk? You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk. You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk. Those are the options, punk.

dude, stop drooling. jesus christ

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.

No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.

Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.

We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.

I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic.

Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind. Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality. That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true. Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic. Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.

P.S. I don't think this "refusal" to relate the logic of man's mind with the mind/logic of God
is meant as something negative or false; I believe Boss is trying to put man's knowledge in perspective with God's which is of course greater.

I agree with you that if Boss does not understand the Christian concept of
how "in Christ" our will can be made one with God's then this is not going to make sense.

To Boss it is going to sound like such a person believes they are speaking for God which is presumptious
to say the least.

But M.D. equally objects to "arrogant" assertions by atheists claiming to KNOW what can or cannot be.

It seems clear to me, nobody really takes too well to someone else thinking they "know more"
what is really going on with God than anyone else's guess.

Both M.D. and Boss object to this.

Boss expresses it by stating the knowledge and logic of man is less than God
and for all we know, we don't know what God knows or God's reasons or ways.

I think that is fair as long as you keep it open.

But MD is not being open about relative views, but seems BENT on EXCLUDING that approach to understanding.
while Boss is closed to the idea that human logic can align or represent God's logic.

So they keep clashing.

I can work with MD ways and Boss ways because I am okay with both absolutes
and relatives as not contradicting each other necessarily.

But they keep rejecting each other because they see these as conflicted. I don't.

Even though man's logic is less, it can align and represent what is going on
with God's will for humanity collectively.
I don't have a problem with that.

I also don't have a problem with people like Boss making sure NOT to
impose absolutes to the point where they exclude someone else's relative approach
and what they know.

I think the ideal is to arrive at the absolutes by free will and reason,
so this requires the faith in those truths existing
and it requires the openness to check ourselves
and know that we just know "parts" of the greater truth or logic/knowledge out there.

Nothing wrong with staying humble and keeping
it in perspective so we keep an open mind and don't get stuck on our absolutes.

The absolutist simply holds to what logic dictates. Boss wants to hold out for something that violates logic and what history's philosophers and theologians known to be irrational. Whatever. Boss' crap is the kind of things that cults believe in, brain wash, mind control. Pretty sick. He wants to pick and choose his beliefs. When the conclusions of organic logic suit him he wants them, when they don't he doesn't. He might as well not even make arguments, just make a list of what he wants to believe and why, and stop with all the baloney that reason has anything to do with what he believes. This is Boss: . He just dances all over the place not understanding a damn thing that comes out of mouth. . Logic proves that he's wrong, now he's trying to say logic doesn't prove things, just like the other dummies. Logic doesn't start with absurdities, and I object to something Rawlings just said to you about Boss' "possibility." It's not a logical possibility in formal logic. I know Rawlings knows that and I know what he meant to say, he just said it wrong. Point that out to Rawlings and watch what he does. Is Rawlings a phony? No. He's not a phony. He admits errors and corrects them. Boss is a phony though. He's GT now or Hollie talking moobat nonsense. Ding Dong. Could Boss still be right if what organic logic proves must be true about God is just a coincidence of human nature? Yeah. But it's not a formal logical possibility, just something we can imagine. I can imagine that my dog's a cat. Like Rawlings says, Boss is just pretending that he can explain how God's logic could be "anti-the laws of logic", but he can't. No one can. And we all know that. It's stupid. And the phonies on this thread are just pretending that Boss' crap is something that we should take serious. Hey, maybe pigs can fly. How messed up is that?

God believes cat = dog? All Boss is saying is that the laws of logic are true for God, except when there not true for God. When we ask him to explain that stupid crap, all he really says is that they're not true for God when I say so. That's all Boss is saying, nothing else, for all you dummies out there. Anyone who doesn't get that especially after Rawlings last post is an idiot. I never seen so may phonies in one place in my life, after Rawlings' last post if Boss implies that his imaginary idea, which is just like something from nothing, explains or did explain how God is anti laws of logic again, I'm putting him down for punk ass lying whore of a phony, a total pussy. Real men don't do that, only pussies. You keep talking about forgiveness, Emily. That doesn't make disgust go away for disgusting behavior and lies.

And here we get to see what happens when you challenge the narcissistic. They simply imply you said things that were not said. They type page-long diatribes based on these lies, and pretend they have accomplished something. You can read through Justin's post and find not one word of truth when it comes to his claims of what I have argued here. This cannot be unintentional or a misunderstanding. It is a quite intended smear campaign, designed for one intent and purpose.

Now you must ask yourself, why would these two clowns be going to such bizarre extremes to destroy the credibility of someone who supposedly believes in the same spiritual God they promote? It is because they are threatened by something I have said. In this case, it appears to be the logic that God bestowed upon man, which God created for man to use in his understanding of the universe. This poses a problem for the intellectual high-brow arguments posed by the narcissist. It doesn't let them be 'above' God for the sake of argumentation.

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

There is no other way to learn but by experience.

So until they learn, they fall into the traps of their own making.
What you accuse others of reflects back on you, too.

And Boss, this applies to me, to Hollie and BreezeWood
everyone else here.

Again, the "logic of God" is to RISE above where it does
not seem to make sense by man's human logic:
man's logic is to point out the flaws and beat each other up
trying to dominate and subjugate the other person.
And we think we are doing this for truth and justice,
for higher laws we are trying to enforce to make corrections.

But our spirit is off it is Negative and showing ill will towards each other.
So even if our arguments make sense,
they are falling flat and not received well when delivered in this negative way.

We are all learning the DIFFERENCE
between our own logic and the higher laws that work better.

Clearly this logic of retribution and retaliation and rejection
is FAILING

Neither you or MD or Justin has any motivation to listen to each other's
points when you all feel attacked, insulted disrespected or otherwise
demeaned in some way that is contrary/inconsistent with what you
know and are TRYING to say.

Untl you recognize the frustration and insult is EQUAL on all sides,
and it is NOT intended because all of you REALLY understand
what YOU are trying to say and think the other person has a problem.

Well it's mutual, it's not your or my fault any more or less
than it is Justin's or MD's fault for failing to communicate with each other.

That is where Forgiveness precedes correction.
The process we may realize here is how letting go emotionally
of the ill will and exasperation with each other may help as necessary FIRST
and THEN we can talk rationally and straighten out the objective points SECOND.

Boss isn't it ironic
that we KNOW this method of bashing each other isn't working
we KNOW we don't respond to it yet we continue doing it to the other
person WE KNOW isn't going to respond to that EITHER

We KNOW the human logic and flaws
and yet the bashing continues!

Clearly there is more to the learning process
where we are meant to be AWARE of the process
and why our perception changes when we decide
to take a different approach to how we communicate.

our points and beliefs stay the same, but how we share them will change
to be more effective than what's going on now.

it's just a learning curve, trial and error,
hit and miss, until we get the target we are shooting for.

in the meantime stray arrows are flying all over
and we just have to be careful for those!

Can't wait to get past this stage and get
to the real content and good stuff underneath
the rock throwing and arrows/bullets flying....

 

[Justin Davis]

So when you see something called a logical proof,

but then say "there is no proof" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).

Again... there is no "proof" logical or otherwise. MD and Justin are free to argue whatever they please, and I am free to disagree with their premises. When we label something "logical proof" what do we mean by that? That our parameters of human thought have looked at the evidence and believe something to be true, based on our understanding and faith in the evidence. It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.

Double dare you. Explain it, cult leader.

 

[Justin Davis]

The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!


1. The Divine Law of Identity

God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A. Hence, God = Boss.

Check!​

2. The Divine Law of Contradiction

God holds that for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A). Hence, the propositions that 2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss, and 2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion are all true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

Check!​

3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle

God holds that for all A: A AND ~A. Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time: Boss is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is not crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.

(Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially. Boss clearly is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only. Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on. But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.)

Check!​

"Boss is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."

 

[G.T.]

I'm not sure I can understand how Justin can go back and read his replies and not be embarrassed. They are cringe-worthy middle school locker room mentality. It's pathetic.

 

[Boss]

So when you see something called a logical proof,

but then say "there is no proof" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).

Again... there is no "proof" logical or otherwise. MD and Justin are free to argue whatever they please, and I am free to disagree with their premises. When we label something "logical proof" what do we mean by that? That our parameters of human thought have looked at the evidence and believe something to be true, based on our understanding and faith in the evidence. It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.

So then you disagree afterall that TAG serves as an absolute.

Really, I knew you to be a bit more rational than what TAGgers say TAG proves as an absolute, but I wanted to make sure we weren't talking past each other. I think we're on the same page.

TAG is a good argument for those who already presuppose God, it is not an absolute proof that god exists. We agree?

Correct, we agree.

 

[emilynghiem]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

What a total phony. I asked you if you existed, punk. You said that you know you existed, punk. I asked how you came to exist, punk. "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk? You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk. You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk. Those are the options, punk.

Hi Justin
if God is unconditional
then to be more like God would mean
not to impose conditions for our own convenience
that are not necessary for our neighbors.

Inevitable may not need to agree on where things in existence came from
(as I would say only God can know all things and we can only know a finite subset of God's knowledge/truth)

But we can still talk about HOW THINGS WORK WITHIN
the given existence. If it isn't necessary to make a condition out of
knowing or not knowing, agreeing or not agreeing on the source of life/creation/universal laws/truth/knowledge,
why pick this fight?

Justin as a Christian you know there is no works or condition
on God's gift of grace, by forgiving by asking to receive we receive.

So as long as Inevitable is ASKING to see certain points or parts
he is interested in exploring, why not follow with him on that path and try to provide meaningful points?

If we cannot demonstrate using live science where the Creation came from,
why not focus on Spiritual Healing or some other meaningful process that
CAN BE demonstrated using science and replicated studies and research.

That can still provide some answers or insights!

I would not pick fights where those conditions are not necessary.

Justin it's like a car, I don't have to know where all the parts were made
to drive the car. Let's just agree what is the safe operation of the car,
the proper ways to drive in relation to others on the road, and dangers to avoid.
We don't have to understand all the mechanics, leave that to the mechanics!

Thanks Justin

If you can see that Inevitable is intellectually honest and sincere
maybe more people can see that you are trying to communicate also
and if there are failures it isn't because you have the wrong intent
it's because our views are so different we can't yet figure out
where the other person is coming from which doesn't make sense to us

We are all struggling this way, but we all have intent of establishing
truth and correcting errors conflicts or inconsistencies

Inevitable is a good person to work with, and will likely serve
as very useful in mediating between people and groups
struggling with these same issues. If you and he can figure
out how to communicate across your different perspectives,
you can both help the next set of people to bridge that gap.

This is not a futile exercise but an investment in learning
how to resolve issues and deal with this process of
theists and nontheists speaking two different languages
and talking past each other. how do we align our points
and principles where we focus on the same things?
and not get distracted or divided over our differences that
we can resolve as we go. how do we prioritize and resolve
things one step at a time. how do we work together when
both sides don't make sense to each other, what is the
best process to follow where we can progress and get somewhere productive.

thanks!

 

[Justin Davis]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

 

[Justin Davis]

The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!


1. The Divine Law of Identity

God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A. Hence, God = Boss.

Check!​

2. The Divine Law of Contradiction

God holds that for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A). Hence, the propositions that 2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss, and 2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion are all true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

Check!​

3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle

God holds that for all A: A AND ~A. Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time: Boss is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is not crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.

(Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially. Boss clearly is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only. Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on. But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.)

Check!​

Just when I thought it couldn't be made any plainer. Cult leader Boss