Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!
I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
The Three Refusals:
1. "I refuse to believe what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
2. "I don't care what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
3. "The formal axioms of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, 2 + 2 = 4 would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!
The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are not logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, a priori axioms of human cognition, Emily!
Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.
Fundie whackjob, there is no such thing as "bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought".
You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.
mdr: We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted.
mdr: Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts .
.
If God went to the 'Whole Markets Food' grocery store, would he ask for paper, or plastic?
.
Definitely paper! That's directly comprised of a substance from His creation. Now angels prefer plastic because it's more durable and lasts longer against the wind shear of the high speeds at which they fly when they carry things along with them on their errands like angel dust and whatnot.
I think God would ask for plastic. As a petroleum based product, plastic was originally a tree that was buried, heated, and squished. God would know that paper and plastic are the same thing.
.
You're right, nobody refuted you. You just haven't proven anything.Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
Likely story.
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality
No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread: Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.
All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it’s possible to refute these things?
In your dreams, Missy.
The real argument is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.
The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, refute each other, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.
BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the potential validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.
Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!
I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.
But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.
(I'm reminded of The Mummy starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." Relativists.)
Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are not logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're trying to defend against Boss' assault.
In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the God axiom, even though it throws atheism into the sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.
And why is that true?
Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the God axiom is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, a priori axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.
Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply shift to or adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now, even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the God axiom and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical a priorities that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.
These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.
Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.
Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
Likely story.
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality
No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
......No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
No one comes to the Father except through me.
when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
* (Hint) temper tantrums are not a response ...
.
Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
Likely story.
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality
No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
......No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
No one comes to the Father except through me.
when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
* (Hint) temper tantrums are not a response ...
.
Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
Likely story.
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality
No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
......No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
No one comes to the Father except through me.
when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
* (Hint) temper tantrums are not a response ...
.
LOL! Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy. What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily follow from the scientific fact of my statement, Missy?
By the way, Missy, this isn't the first timeBlowhardBreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
Proof is without bias and requires no faith.
I think you are addressing the wrong person.Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
Likely story.
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality
No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
......No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
No one comes to the Father except through me.
when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
* (Hint) temper tantrums are not a response ...
.
LOL! Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy. What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily follow from the scientific fact of my statement, Missy?
By the way, Missy, this isn't the first timeBlowhardBreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!
I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
The Three Refusals:
1. "I refuse to believe what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
2. "I don't care what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
3. "The formal axioms of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, 2 + 2 = 4 would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!
The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are not logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, a priori axioms of human cognition, Emily!
Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.
You haven't produced any proof.Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
Proof is without bias and requires no faith.
That what we keep telling you blind faithers but you keep blindingly believing in magical things and skip the proofs standing right in front of you.
"You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).
You haven't produced any proof.Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
Proof is without bias and requires no faith.
That what we keep telling you blind faithers but you keep blindingly believing in magical things and skip the proofs standing right in front of you.
"You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).
I think you are addressing the wrong person.Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
Likely story.
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality
No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
......No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
No one comes to the Father except through me.
when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
* (Hint) temper tantrums are not a response ...
.
LOL! Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy. What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily follow from the scientific fact of my statement, Missy?
By the way, Missy, this isn't the first timeBlowhardBreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!
I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
The Three Refusals:
1. "I refuse to believe what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
2. "I don't care what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
3. "The formal axioms of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, 2 + 2 = 4 would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!
The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are not logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, a priori axioms of human cognition, Emily!
Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.
Shouldn't that be four refusals?
God existing.You haven't produced any proof.Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
Proof is without bias and requires no faith.
That what we keep telling you blind faithers but you keep blindingly believing in magical things and skip the proofs standing right in front of you.
"You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).
Proof for what?
It was written in response to me, yet has nothing to do with me.I think you are addressing the wrong person.Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality
No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
......No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:
No one comes to the Father except through me.
when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
* (Hint) temper tantrums are not a response ...
.
LOL! Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy. What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily follow from the scientific fact of my statement, Missy?
By the way, Missy, this isn't the first timeBlowhardBreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
You're the only pretending to understand the question, phony.
It was written in response to me, yet has nothing to do with me.I think you are addressing the wrong person.Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.......
when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
* (Hint) temper tantrums are not a response ...
.
LOL! Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy. What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily follow from the scientific fact of my statement, Missy?
By the way, Missy, this isn't the first timeBlowhardBreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
You're the only pretending to understand the question, phony.
God existing.You haven't produced any proof.Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
Proof is without bias and requires no faith.
That what we keep telling you blind faithers but you keep blindingly believing in magical things and skip the proofs standing right in front of you.
"You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).
Proof for what?
But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.
No, that would be OMNISCIENT... Which God also IS!
You are the one clinging to some irrational belief that God Almighty is somehow confined to your human imagination and humanistic constraints of thought. You're a fucking whack job!
Yes, of course, omniscient. That's what I meant, forget about what I wrote. I'm the whack job? Well, then, jackass, I'm in good company, for only a small minority of histories religious systems of thought, invariably cultish in nature, hold to your brainwashed nonsense; you know, how like the billions of monotheistic and pantheistic believers of the world think you're the whack job, whack job, for obvious reasons.
I wish we could forget about what you write, but you just keep on posting nonsense. Yep, you're the certifiable whack job here, you and Justin. And no, you're not in good company because the vast and overwhelming majority of believers in God believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. Next thing you know, you and Justin will be arguing that God isn't omnipresent because He's constrained by the principles of physics! (*GOD's Physics... which God didn't create!)
He's suggesting that because God is [omniscient], He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.
And you are suggesting that your God doesn't.
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism teach that God created logic? Pantheists believe God created logic? Since when? Cracker Jack theology.
