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

[G.T.]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

Come on. We've already defined what logic we're talking about. We're talking about the three formal organic laws of thought, the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle and the absolute standard of objectivity. It's been thoroughly defined. GT keeps trying to impose the fallacies of informal logic that only apply to secondary propositions, not to the axioms of formal logic. He's an idiot. He knows he cannot refute the axioms of formal logic. He's phony. Boss is trying to argue that an imaginary absurdity, which is a secondary proposition that is a logical fallacy refutes formal axiom. They are phonies. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof phonies everywhere.

I've refuted that they're even axioms to begin with, and I've done so without any refutation whatsoever.

Axiom: an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

Hold the phone, there's no controversy over the existence of god!!?!?!?!!?

Up is down, retard.

 

[Boss]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.

To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.

I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.

What I know, or more accurately, what I believe I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.

 

[Justin Davis]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.

To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.

I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.

What I know, or more accurately, what I believe I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.

What a phony. The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore. The laws of organic logic prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting? Anthropomorphizing? Same thing! That does not logically follow. The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this? You don't have any. You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility obviously cannot be denied, you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic. You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way. That's the whole point, you retarded phony. You're begging the question without justification. The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted. Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No. Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No. When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens? The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours. That's a fact of human thought. There's no getting around it. .

 

[Boss]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.

To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.

I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.

What I know, or more accurately, what I believe I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.

What a phony. The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore. The laws of organic logic prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting? Anthropomorphizing? Same thing! That does not logically follow. The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this? You don't have any. You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility obviously cannot be denied, you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic. You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way. That's the whole point, you retarded phony. You're begging the question without justification. The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted. Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No. Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No. When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens? The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours. That's a fact of human thought. There's no getting around it. .

I never have claimed that God didn't give humans logic. God created humans, therefore, God created logic. Why must you continue to lie about things I've said and call me names?

It's really funny to me... You want to argue that logic says 2+2=4... But... We could all wake in the morning, and IF God wanted 2+2=5, then our perception would be that 2+2=5 is logical, and we'd have no memory of yesterday, when logic said 2+2=4. Logic doesn't trump God.

 

[emilynghiem]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.

To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.

I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.

What I know, or more accurately, what I believe I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.

What a phony. The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore. The laws of organic logic prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting? Anthropomorphizing? Same thing! That does not logically follow. The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this? You don't have any. You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility obviously cannot be denied, you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic. You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way. That's the whole point, you retarded phony. You're begging the question without justification. The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted. Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No. Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No. When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens? The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours. That's a fact of human thought. There's no getting around it. .

I never have claimed that God didn't give humans logic. God created humans, therefore, God created logic. Why must you continue to lie about things I've said and call me names?

It's really funny to me... You want to argue that logic says 2+2=4... But... We could all wake in the morning, and IF God wanted 2+2=5, then our perception would be that 2+2=5 is logical, and we'd have no memory of yesterday, when logic said 2+2=4. Logic doesn't trump God.

it's funny to him too
he thinks you're the one saying
2+2=5 when he is agreeing with MD that
2+2=4

do you see what is happening Boss?

Boss if you speak Spanish and you say Gato = means "CAT"
And if Justin speaks French and he says Gateaux = means "CAKE"

both of you accuse the other of trying to say a Cake is the same as a Cat
or a Cat is the same as a Cake

even though the word LOGIC sounds the same
it means something different the way
each of you is using it in different contexts.

in this case it is almost like OPPOSITE
in meaning

you are both going to think the other person
is REALLY messed up! and you both see
how you are right and makes sense but
can't see how the other person is saying whatever....

 

[G.T.]

Gateaux means from the hood

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.

Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say. My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid. Are you still a kid, a little boy? Science doesn't prove things, logic does. Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony. The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true. Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic. You can't do that phony.

No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.

Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.

Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.

You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.

Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony. This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you it.

I never said axioms were, dunce.

I said it's not an axiom to begin with.

You dip, duck and dodge that because it's necessary for you to save face for a failed assertion.

But noone being dumber than you, it logically follows that it's above your head.

I know what you said, you retarded phony. You said it's not an axiom because it's an informal logical fallacy, you retarded phony. The axioms of organic logic are not informal logical fallacies, because they're true no matter what, you retarded phony. If your retarded phoniness were true than all axioms of organic logic would be informal logical fallacies, including A:A=A, you retarded phony.

Dear Justin: If you are about to take off time here and focus elsewhere,
you could be losing patience with all of us. I see no reason to declare
everyone "phony's" for lack of a better term or way to respond to express your objections.

Just saying you object and question that response is FINE
you do't have to make assertions or attacks against the person.

If you do, this could be a sign that you are losing interest
becuase your attention is needed elsewhere, and you don't
have time to mess with this right now.

So if you leave, when you come back maybe we can pick up
and try to work things out.

GT and amrchaos are not phony at all.

when I asked to consider spiritual healing, they are open to it
and ask healthy normal questions about what this involves.

Justin if they were phony or had other intent,
they would be more like Hollie and either avoid the question
and ONLY focus on arguing points they can win.

Just to attack and object and trump the opposing or offending point.

GT and amrchaos have not avoided the issue that I said
could resolve a huge gap in this puzzle between
secular science taht is observable and can be replicated to demonstrate consistently
and religious symbolism for spiritual concepts or process that is abstract
and covers collective ground beyond what science can capture.

since GT and amrchaos do not reject for the sake of rejecting
I can tell they are for real and not phony, not in it to make a quick
slam dunk on mistakes or weaknesses they can use to smear someone.

Inevitable is also sincere and less afraid than Hollie
who has not answered about this spiritual healing but seems to avoid it
and only jump on MD for the sake of jumping

 

[Justin Davis]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.

To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.

I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.

What I know, or more accurately, what I believe I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.

What a phony. The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore. The laws of organic logic prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting? Anthropomorphizing? Same thing! That does not logically follow. The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this? You don't have any. You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility obviously cannot be denied, you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic. You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way. That's the whole point, you retarded phony. You're begging the question without justification. The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted. Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No. Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No. When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens? The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours. That's a fact of human thought. There's no getting around it. .

I never have claimed that God didn't give humans logic. God created humans, therefore, God created logic. Why must you continue to lie about things I've said and call me names?

It's really funny to me... You want to argue that logic says 2+2=4... But... We could all wake in the morning, and IF God wanted 2+2=5, then our perception would be that 2+2=5 is logical, and we'd have no memory of yesterday, when logic said 2+2=4. Logic doesn't trump God.

No one is saying logic trumps God, you punk ass lying whore. I'm telling you God is Logic, you punk ass lying whore. You've been told that over and over again, you punk ass lying whore. So your imaginary bull, the same kind of absurdity that something can come nothing, about God becomes not-God tomorrow is a straw man, you punk ass lying whore. I can imagine my dog's a cat too and that's all you stupid idea about God creating logic is.

I'm calling you out for a punk ass lying whore because the people you started to verbally abuse the people who don't believe that your dog = cat bull is a fact like you claim. You started calling me an idiot and liar as you pretend not to understand that the logic we have could be God's logic, not created at all but endowed. The logic we have could have always existed in God. God created logic? So God doesn't have logic? You can explain how God's logic would be different than our logic? Then explain how God believes that a cat is the same thing as a dog if His logic is different than ours.

 

[G.T.]

 

[emilynghiem]

Gateaux means from the hood

so instead of being the GOTO person
it's about being the Gateaux person?

is that Ghetto speak?
or Gateaux speak?

Seriously
GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
have any suggestions what TERMS to use
for explaining the distinction
Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
vs.
Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
and represent that using Man's logic terms.

They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.

Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.

Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
it to what he is trying to say either. So we sound fake to him that
we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.

clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
off base and going around in our own circles and not
any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.

whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.

the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
may mirror each other and we need to align
the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
same for the next person, but each may need to be
resolved distinctly.

Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
instead of fighting over whose system is going to
dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
each person KEEP their own system and
translate where things lie under both systems
and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.

G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
for better terms or descriptions to specify what
Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
that is true in their system, I can try to work with
MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.

by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.

the content underneath is the same for all people
but our expressions for these abstract levels
can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
different terms for the levels of awareness that
American English does not distinguish from each other).
In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
while we only have one. And Greeks had different
words for the different types of LOVE while English
requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
how many different levels or aspect could we
quantify there?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.

It's in post 4622. "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."

Boss' What if Pigs Could Fly?

Okay. Got it. Boss' notion is not even a potentiality or a hypothetical in classic or modal logic, but an absurdity, so it is not a formal possibility in those forms of logic.

Obviously, if God doesn't exist, the idea of logic being created is meaningless. But Boss' proposition is that God does exist and created the logic humans have.

Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility. For any attempt to argue what Boss is arguing in the same necessarily negates itself and positively proves the opposite is true.

Modal logic is the formal logic of necessity and possibility. In modal logic, one would first ask whether or not it's possible that God created logic for humans without any consideration given to any other logical issues or knowledge to the contrary. In other words, one just asks the question in isolation, on the face of it. The answer would be yes, that's possible. But in modal logic, one would then ask whether or not God necessarily created logic for humans with all the known rational or empirical (if there be any of the latter) facts on the table. The answer would be no, that's not necessary, and because it's not necessary, indeed, self-negating, it would be falsified/negated in modal logic.

In constructive logic, Boss' notion would be assigned a might or might not be true value at first as it pertains to something that is not empirical in nature, i.e., is not inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. Note that only in constructive logic are the terms proof and verification used, not interchangeably, but side-by-side because constructive logic is the more technical logic used to produce hypothesis for science. Also, note that it would not be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value, as the double proofs of the TAG would be. Why? Because Boss' notion irredeemably violates the principle of identity, which is the universally indispensable axiom for all forms of logic: for organic logic and for any alternate, analytic forms of logic.

However, it can still be considered in constructive logic on the merit of its face value as either a rational or irrational proposition. Remember, in constructive logic the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination (which is the axiom Boss' notion violates, the one that reveals the notion's violation of the principle of identity) are suspended as axioms, though the violations of these imperatives can still be demonstrated on a case by case basis.

So in constructive logic, which is all about intuiting hypotheses for science, the question is not is this proposition consistently ration (organic logic)? or is the proposition's claim possible or necessary on the face of it (modal logic)? but what are the alternatives that might account for the phenomenal subject and/or the phenomenal object of the original proposition?

Well, the imperatives of organic logic hold that God does exist and that God must have bestowed His logic on the creation. The imperatives of modal logic hold, without consideration given to any other factors, such as Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic, that if God does exist then He necessarily bestowed His logic on the creation.

Constructive logic holds that the proofs in organic and modal logic regarding God's agency in this matter are valid, might or might not be true propositions, and that the alternate agent is nature. Hence, Boss' notion that logic was created is negated. Further, as constructive logic is the technical logic for science, one would ask what neurobiology or psychology has to say about it. Both hold that the laws of thought are bioneurologically hardwired and, therefore, universal.

Hence, on that level, we have a proposition inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. On a case by case basis then we see that Boss' notion violates the organic axiom of double negation elimination, in this case, positively proving the opposite to be true, and by extension proving that it is the falsified expression of the positive God bestowed His logic relative to the organic law of the excluded middle.

Boss' notion is falsified.

It is not a formal possibility in any form of logic and is not a legitimate hypothesis for science. Boss' notion is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable.

It is a merely an imaginary what if. What if pigs could fly? Boss is demanding that the imperatives of organic logic prove the negative of his refusal to believe the rational evidence of the imperatives of organic logic that neither he or nor any other human being can negate.

All he's really saying in the end is that the universal, bioneurologically hardwired absolutes of organic logic are not absolutely true ultimately or transcendentally!

Prove it!

And, of course, he can't do that, for, once again, any argument launched against any one of the two imperatives of the Transcendental Argument will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, will positively prove the opposite to be true, logically.

 

[G.T.]

MD you should look up redundant in a dictionary and then read your last paragraph there over and over and over again until it sinks in.

Then, and for fun, fill a water gun with bleach and have a war with your curtains.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Gateaux means from the hood

so instead of being the GOTO person
it's about being the Gateaux person?

is that Ghetto speak?
or Gateaux speak?

Seriously
GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
have any suggestions what TERMS to use
for explaining the distinction
Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
vs.
Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
and represent that using Man's logic terms.

They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.

Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.

Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
it to what he is trying to say either. So we sound fake to him that
we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.

clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
off base and going around in our own circles and not
any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.

whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.

the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
may mirror each other and we need to align
the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
same for the next person, but each may need to be
resolved distinctly.

Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
instead of fighting over whose system is going to
dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
each person KEEP their own system and
translate where things lie under both systems
and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.

G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
for better terms or descriptions to specify what
Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
that is true in their system, I can try to work with
MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.

by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.

the content underneath is the same for all people
but our expressions for these abstract levels
can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
different terms for the levels of awareness that
American English does not distinguish from each other).
In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
while we only have one. And Greeks had different
words for the different types of LOVE while English
requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
how many different levels or aspect could we
quantify there?

Boss and I are talking about logic in the very same context, the context of the formal laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. That is the logic we have. Boss claims that the imperatives of that logic anthropomorphize God, that the imperatives of that logic project the constituents of our consciousness on God's consciousness as if God's logic or the fundamental constituents of God's mind were something different in nature than ours, rather than different in magnitude.

Of course, what Boss is literally saying is that the philosophers and theologians of history, and the billions of believers in history are doing that just because. LOL! But that's just Boss ≠ Boss, but = Tiny Little god (Boss) in the gap pretending not to understand that it's the objective facts of human cognition which hold that the logic we have was not created by God, but has always existed in God and was bestowed on us by God. According to organic logic, we were theologized by God, which is the only logical possibility or logical necessity in formal logic, while constructive logic formally allows for the alternative possibility that nature is the bestowing agent. Nowhere in formal logic does the notion that God created our logic hold up. It is negated/falsified in all forms of logic!

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.

It's in post 4622. "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."

Okay. Got it. Boss' notion is not even a potentiality or a hypothetical in classic or modal logic, but an absurdity, so it is not a formal possibility in those forms of logic.

Obviously, if God doesn't exist, the idea of logic being created is meaningless. But Boss' proposition is that God does exist and created the logic humans have.

Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility. For any attempt to argue what Boss is arguing in the same necessarily negates itself and positively proves the opposite is true.

Modal logic is the formal logic of necessity and possibility. In modal logic, one would first ask whether or not it's possible that God created logic for humans without any consideration given to any other logical issues or knowledge to the contrary. In other words, one just asks the question in isolation, on the face of it. The answer would be yes, that's possible. But then in modal logic, one would then ask whether or not God necessarily created logic for humans with all the known rational or empirical (if there be any of the latter) facts on the table. The answer would be no, that's not necessary, and because it's not necessary, indeed, self-negating, it would be falsified/negated in modal logic.

In constructive logic, Boss' notion would be assigned a might or might not be true value at first as it pertains to something that is not empirical in nature, i.e., is not inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. Note that only in constructive logic are the terms proof and verification used, not interchangeably, but side-by-side because constructive logic is the more technical logic used to produce hypothesis for science. Also, note that it would not be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value, as the double proofs of the TAG would be. Why? Because Boss' notion irredeemably violates the principle of identity, which is the universally indispensable axiom for all forms of logic: for organic logic and for any alternate, analytic forms of logic.

However, it can still be considered in constructive logic on the merit of its face value as either a rational or irrational proposition. Remember, in constructive logic the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination (which is the axiom Boss' notion violates, the one that reveals the notion's violation of the principle of identity) are suspended as axioms, though the violations of these imperatives can still be demonstrated on a case by case basis.

So in constructive logic, which is all about intuiting hypotheses for science, the question is not is this proposition consistently ration (organic logic)? or is the proposition's claim possible or necessary on the face of it (modal logic)? but what are the alternatives that might account for the phenomenal subject and/or the object of the original proposition?

Well, the imperatives of organic logic hold that God does exist and that God must have bestowed His logic on the creation. The imperatives of modal logic hold, without consideration given to any other factors, such as Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic, that if God does exist then He necessarily bestowed His logic on the creation.

Constructive logic holds that the proofs in organic and modal logic regarding God's agency in this matter are valid, might or might not be true propositions, and that the alternate agent is nature. Hence, Boss' notion that logic was created is negated. Further, as constructive logic is the technical logic for science, one would ask what neurobiology or psychology has to say about it. Both hold that the laws of thought are bioneurologically hardwired and, therefore, universal.

Hence, on that level, we have a proposition inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. On a case by case basis then we see that Boss' notion violates the axiom in organic logic of double negation elimination, in this case positively proving the opposite to be true, and by extension proving that it is the falsified expression of the positive God bestowed His logic relative to the organic law of the excluded middle.

Boss' notion is falsified. It is not a formal possibility in any form of logic and is not a legitimate hypothesis for science. Boss' notion is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable.

It is a merely an imaginary thing. Boss is demanding that the imperatives of organic logic prove a negative in the face of his refusal to believe the rational evidence of the imperatives of organic logic that he cannot negate.

Dear M.D. Rawlings and Boss:
I hate to see you continue to misread what each other means
by taking what you post so literally and mixing the contexts where you are
losing the meaning and talking past each other.

You are both conscientious minded, with the best convictions,
but these are getting the worst of you right now.

You are so offended that the other person is contradicting
and insulting what you are saying and what you mean,
that you are not getting what each other really means.

You are too caught up in trying to explain and defend your views.
This is chaotic and crossing wires!

My mother pointed out to me there are at least 3 levels of communication
A. the REAL truth for you, what you MEAN underneath
B. your expression of it
C. the other person's perception/interpretation of B

We are not getting past C and B
to get to A.

I tend to process things holistically as an Empath.
So I "read" vibes on level
and then struggle to reconcile the concepts and principles/content in A
using B and C and those are the levels where the mutual cross-entanglements
get so confused we can't see what each other means on level A.

Online it is even worse!
People question each other's motives, who is being a hard ass
or deliberately or unconsciously skewing or screwing it around or whatever.

That is one point I dont waste time on.
I don't waste time accusing people
becuase I'm too busy trying to disentangle
confusion over B and C to get to A!

Now I am going into this assuming we all
ahve the best intent and have consistent truth on level A

And where things are getting entangled is B

and then when we misread each other's intent
we screw up C by thinking the other person is a screwball

What can we do to untangle
the problems on levels B and C

I want to get to A and the concepts there.

You are both focusing on the words used in B.

How do we align all these levels so there is no confusion
and false accusations of each other's intent, character intelligence or whatever.

Do you understand that this problem is going on
and masking what each other thinks of what the other person is trying to do or say?

The miscommunication and cross wires are so bad,
people are taking insult and then insulting the other person for the same,
and then taking insult that other people are either calling names or being called names.

All that is from the superficial levels.

I want to focus and stick to the real underlying content in level A.
how do we get there from this messy entanglement where we are now?

thanks and sorry this happens
online it is worse
but with the intelligence and commitment to getting things
right and consistent, as long as we don't give up, we'll straighten this out!

 

[Justin Davis]

Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.

It's in post 4622. "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."

Okay. Got it. Boss' notion is not even a potentiality or a hypothetical in classic or modal logic, but an absurdity, so it is not a formal possibility in those forms of logic.

Obviously, if God doesn't exist, the idea of logic being created is meaningless. But Boss' proposition is that God does exist and created the logic humans have.

Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility. For any attempt to argue what Boss is arguing in the same necessarily negates itself and positively proves the opposite is true.

Modal logic is the formal logic of necessity and possibility. In modal logic, one would first ask whether or not it's possible that God created logic for humans without any consideration given to any other logical issues or knowledge to the contrary. In other words, one just asks the question in isolation, on the face of it. The answer would be yes, that's possible. But then in modal logic, one would then ask whether or not God necessarily created logic for humans with all the known rational or empirical (if there be any of the latter) facts on the table. The answer would be no, that's not necessary, and because it's not necessary, indeed, self-negating, it would be falsified/negated in modal logic.

In constructive logic, Boss' notion would be assigned a might or might not be true value at first as it pertains to something that is not empirical in nature, i.e., is not inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. Note that only in constructive logic are the terms proof and verification used, not interchangeably, but side-by-side because constructive logic is the more technical logic used to produce hypothesis for science. Also, note that it would not be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value, as the double proofs of the TAG would be. Why? Because Boss' notion irredeemably violates the principle of identity, which is the universally indispensable axiom for all forms of logic: for organic logic and for any alternate, analytic forms of logic.

However, it can still be considered in constructive logic on the merit of its face value as either a rational or irrational proposition. Remember, in constructive logic the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination (which is the axiom Boss' notion violates, the one that reveals the notion's violation of the principle of identity) are suspended as axioms, though the violations of these imperatives can still be demonstrated on a case by case basis.

So in constructive logic, which is all about intuiting hypotheses for science, the question is not is this proposition consistently ration (organic logic)? or is the proposition's claim possible or necessary on the face of it (modal logic)? but what are the alternatives that might account for the phenomenal subject and/or the object of the original proposition?

Well, the imperatives of organic logic hold that God does exist and that God must have bestowed His logic on the creation. The imperatives of modal logic hold, without consideration given to any other factors, such as Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic, that if God does exist then He necessarily bestowed His logic on the creation.

Constructive logic holds that the proofs in organic and modal logic regarding God's agency in this matter are valid, might or might not be true propositions, and that the alternate agent is nature. Hence, Boss' notion that logic was created is negated. Further, as constructive logic is the technical logic for science, one would ask what neurobiology or psychology has to say about it. Both hold that the laws of thought are bioneurologically hardwired and, therefore, universal.

Hence, on that level, we have a proposition inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. On a case by case basis then we see that Boss' notion violates the axiom in organic logic of double negation elimination, in this case positively proving the opposite to be true, and by extension proving that it is the falsified expression of the positive God bestowed His logic relative to the organic law of the excluded middle.

Boss' notion is falsified. It is not a formal possibility in any form of logic and is not a legitimate hypothesis for science. Boss' notion is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable.

It is a merely an imaginary thing. Boss is demanding that the imperatives of organic logic prove a negative in the face of his refusal to believe the rational evidence of the imperatives of organic logic that he cannot negate.

So Boss' goof is not a formal logical possibility or even close to being a necessity in logic?

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok one point at a time thanks this helps tremendously:

(A) Boss claims that the imperatives of that logic anthropomorphize God, that the imperatives of that logic project the constituents of our consciousness on God's consciousness as if God's logic or the fundamental constituents of God's mind were something different in nature than ours, rather than different in magnitude.

Boss thought you were doing this. thought you were saying our logic "determines or controls" God

so you are both objecting to the same concept
but both thinking/accusing the other of saying it wrong and gettin git backwards

Since both you and Boss are objecting to the notion
that man's logic creates God,
I can only surmise that you agree this is messed up.

Sorry your words are getting twisted around backwards
but Boss was also complaining those interpretations were NOT what Boss meant either!

(B) God's logic being different in nature than ours rather than in magnitude

True, when we are one, then God magnifies this collectively
whereas we experience life in a microcosm or reflection of the whole

False, when we Contradict higher laws and go by man's fallacies and faulty logic which
we should call "illogic" to distinguish when this is OFF, as Boss seems to
want to DISTINGUISH,
then this IS INDEED not in harmony with God's logic or laws.

I would say God's ideal is that we be united in truth and liberated from division
discord strife and falsehood error or confusion skewing us off target with each other
instead of "agreeing in Christ" or united as one in mind/conscience

But when we keep sticking to that which is dividing us
that runs contrary.

the examples I gave were
a. continuing to insult or attack others when we know this isn't resolving or helping anything
but making it worse, so it is ILLOGICAL and makes no sense to keep bashing back and forth
b. doing that ^ while complaining others are doing it to us while doing it back saying we are justified in dishing it back
because they did it to us, but then say they are not justified because we didn't do that to them we were justified!
so that's another level of not making sense stacked on top:
if we KNOW we don't like it and don't respond or change/correct anything if people do this to us
WHY do it to others knowing they aren't going to like it and aren't going to correct anything by being attacked either!

so this is an example of how man's decisions which seem natural to us
go against God's higher ideals and laws or logic/wisdom as to what will get us toward agreement in truth

this sidetracking of bashing to vent our past issues is
part of the process of working it all out, but if we don't
recognize this, we judge and criticize each other in circles.

so that is where man's ways are definitely in conflict with God's higher path plan and purpose,
and these ways of man will come to an end, exhausting themselves,
and leave God's ways as self-sustaining

we will eventually grow tired of our ways that don't work
and submit to God's ways that are consistent and lasting[/QUOTE]

 

[emilynghiem]

So Boss' goof is not a formal logical possibility or even close to being a necessity in logic?

1. I don't think Boss is interested in limiting the discussion or definition of God
to just the TAG points process outline and approach. Boss objected to trying to control
the image of God using this "logic" approach, that doesn't work for Boss but leaves out
the parts or process that Boss does relate to and connect with.

BreezeWood also does not follow this spelling out of God using TAG
but dismisses it as just another Christian biased projection or idolatrous image of God
being worshipped in place of the Almighty transcending the words on the page.

2. You and MD are busy defending TAG and the logic of using this approach.

BreezeWood and Boss are basically saying the true understanding of God/Almighty
exceeds that anyway and want to start the conversation from a different approach.

they fear that limiting the discussion of God to just this doesn't prove
or explain the greater things about God they feel are being missed.

3. I guess it is like arguing
a. if capturing the entire symphony on the page is "all we need" and WE'RE DONE!
b. or forget the sheet music, what's important is enjoying and experiencing the symphony.

B. one group is afraid if you focus on the central representation of the music
you limit yourself to that or idolize it or miss the bigger picture and performance that transcend the notes on the page

A. I think you and MD are so concerned about establishing agreement
on the absolute, that we can summarize in writing, like getting all the actual NOTES of the CONTENT right,

that you nix anyone who wants to take that same melody
and play it without following the same sheet music,
and aren't following the exact same core patterns that you establish is within everyone's parts.

We need both, these do not compete with each other.

We can AGREE on the scales used, and AGREE on the chords and melody lines,
but if one person plays a part differently from someone else, there's room for that.

When the orchestra plays together YES each part needs to be in sync with the others in that section.

What you are missing is even if
ALL the players and sections are playing the same symphony
in perfect synch and harmony and following the score perfectly,

the flute part looks Nothing like the drum part
the sax part is in a Different key from the clarinets or trumpet

so it is mistake to try to get all the players to play
"the same notes on the same page at the same time"

their music isn't even written that way
but is in different keys for a reason
and it makes the symphony work out anyway
it's designed that way!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.

It's in post 4622. "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."

Okay. Got it. Boss' notion is not even a potentiality or a hypothetical in classic or modal logic, but an absurdity, so it is not a formal possibility in those forms of logic.

Obviously, if God doesn't exist, the idea of logic being created is meaningless. But Boss' proposition is that God does exist and created the logic humans have.

Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility. For any attempt to argue what Boss is arguing in the same necessarily negates itself and positively proves the opposite is true.

Modal logic is the formal logic of necessity and possibility. In modal logic, one would first ask whether or not it's possible that God created logic for humans without any consideration given to any other logical issues or knowledge to the contrary. In other words, one just asks the question in isolation, on the face of it. The answer would be yes, that's possible. But then in modal logic, one would then ask whether or not God necessarily created logic for humans with all the known rational or empirical (if there be any of the latter) facts on the table. The answer would be no, that's not necessary, and because it's not necessary, indeed, self-negating, it would be falsified/negated in modal logic.

In constructive logic, Boss' notion would be assigned a might or might not be true value at first as it pertains to something that is not empirical in nature, i.e., is not inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. Note that only in constructive logic are the terms proof and verification used, not interchangeably, but side-by-side because constructive logic is the more technical logic used to produce hypothesis for science. Also, note that it would not be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value, as the double proofs of the TAG would be. Why? Because Boss' notion irredeemably violates the principle of identity, which is the universally indispensable axiom for all forms of logic: for organic logic and for any alternate, analytic forms of logic.

However, it can still be considered in constructive logic on the merit of its face value as either a rational or irrational proposition. Remember, in constructive logic the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination (which is the axiom Boss' notion violates, the one that reveals the notion's violation of the principle of identity) are suspended as axioms, though the violations of these imperatives can still be demonstrated on a case by case basis.

So in constructive logic, which is all about intuiting hypotheses for science, the question is not is this proposition consistently ration (organic logic)? or is the proposition's claim possible or necessary on the face of it (modal logic)? but what are the alternatives that might account for the phenomenal subject and/or the object of the original proposition?

Well, the imperatives of organic logic hold that God does exist and that God must have bestowed His logic on the creation. The imperatives of modal logic hold, without consideration given to any other factors, such as Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic, that if God does exist then He necessarily bestowed His logic on the creation.

Constructive logic holds that the proofs in organic and modal logic regarding God's agency in this matter are valid, might or might not be true propositions, and that the alternate agent is nature. Hence, Boss' notion that logic was created is negated. Further, as constructive logic is the technical logic for science, one would ask what neurobiology or psychology has to say about it. Both hold that the laws of thought are bioneurologically hardwired and, therefore, universal.

Hence, on that level, we have a proposition inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. On a case by case basis then we see that Boss' notion violates the axiom in organic logic of double negation elimination, in this case positively proving the opposite to be true, and by extension proving that it is the falsified expression of the positive God bestowed His logic relative to the organic law of the excluded middle.

Boss' notion is falsified. It is not a formal possibility in any form of logic and is not a legitimate hypothesis for science. Boss' notion is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable.

It is a merely an imaginary thing. Boss is demanding that the imperatives of organic logic prove a negative in the face of his refusal to believe the rational evidence of the imperatives of organic logic that he cannot negate.

So Boss' goof is not a formal logical possibility or even close to being a necessity in logic?

That's right. It's neither . . . in formal logic. But it's okay to say that it's a possibility or a potentiality that can be imagined, a what if. But because it is not something that is logically possible to explain without proving the opposite . . . well, what do we normally call such things? Absurdities! So no I shouldn't have said logical possibility, just a possibility of human imagination that immediately collapses the moment you apply the laws of thought to it. But you shouldn't compare it to something from nothing because the latter has an empirical element to it which allows it to be considered as a hypothesis in science, however improbable.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.

To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.

I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.

What I know, or more accurately, what I believe I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.

What a phony. The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore. The laws of organic logic prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting? Anthropomorphizing? Same thing! That does not logically follow. The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this? You don't have any. You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility obviously cannot be denied, you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic. You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way. That's the whole point, you retarded phony. You're begging the question without justification. The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted. Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No. Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No. When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens? The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours. That's a fact of human thought. There's no getting around it. .

I never have claimed that God didn't give humans logic. God created humans, therefore, God created logic. Why must you continue to lie about things I've said and call me names?

It's really funny to me... You want to argue that logic says 2+2=4... But... We could all wake in the morning, and IF God wanted 2+2=5, then our perception would be that 2+2=5 is logical, and we'd have no memory of yesterday, when logic said 2+2=4. Logic doesn't trump God.

No one is saying logic trumps God, you punk ass lying whore. I'm telling you God is Logic, you punk ass lying whore. You've been told that over and over again, you punk ass lying whore. So your imaginary bull, the same kind of absurdity that something can come nothing, about God becomes not-God tomorrow is a straw man, you punk ass lying whore. I can imagine my dog's a cat too and that's all you stupid idea about God creating logic is.

I'm calling you out for a punk ass lying whore because the people you started to verbally abuse the people who don't believe that your dog = cat bull is a fact like you claim. You started calling me an idiot and liar as you pretend not to understand that the logic we have could be God's logic, not created at all but endowed. The logic we have could have always existed in God. God created logic? So God doesn't have logic? You can explain how God's logic would be different than our logic? Then explain how God believes that a cat is the same thing as a dog if His logic is different than ours.

Please, Justin, turn the volume down a little. Look, I get the disgust with Boss' evasions, but just state the matter with satire. Okay? I'm swearing off all name calling regardless what others say because it's getting out of hand. However, I don't fault your observations about all the phoniness flying around this place.

 

[Inevitable]

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.

Hey, ease up there friend. No need to stop being a lady about it.

My existence really doesn't prove the existence of God.