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

[Boss]

Are you saying that God the Creator doesn't exist, fancy pants?

No, because that's what YOU'VE said, dimwit. You have stated several times now that God didn't create logic. Then you invented "God's Logic" to justify your notion that logic is something more than human cognition at work. So you have already relegated "God The Creator" to God who created some things and didn't create other things convenient to your thoughts and imagination. At one point you even claimed that "Logic=God" ...your words exactly! But nothing equals God.

Since you've been completely unable to support your belief in a God who is clearly neither omnipotent or omniscient, who must conform to human logic and sentience, you've taken to hurling insults at everything that moves... other than Rawlings, who you have shown a deep affinity and admiration for all through this thread. Amid your cheap shots, you consistently try to lie and manipulate the conversation, morphing things that have been said into quite the opposite, so that you can strut around like a billy-bad-ass. I've lost count at the number of sheer lies you've told about me and my viewpoints, but that doesn't really matter to me because everyone here is dismissing you as the kook you are now. So you've buried yourself with your big fat arrogant mouth.

 

[Justin Davis]

I feel like we should be concerned with this guy

Shut up you lying punk. Everyone left on this thread EXCEPT FOR FANCY PANTS knows you're lying about the "cognition thing," pretending not to remember. So you must be trying to show off for your new girlfriend fancy pants who thought I was talking to her. Flex your muscles for fancy pants again, she believes anything she's told. Oh look, everybody, GT is showing off for his new girlfriend.

Does your wife know that you're flirting with forum bimbos? Are you saying I can’t find your post and quote it, you lying punk?

 

[G.T.]

Kay man

 

[Justin Davis]

Are you saying that God the Creator doesn't exist, fancy pants?

No, because that's what YOU'VE said, dimwit. You have stated several times now that God didn't create logic. Then you invented "God's Logic" to justify your notion that logic is something more than human cognition at work. So you have already relegated "God The Creator" to God who created some things and didn't create other things convenient to your thoughts and imagination. At one point you even claimed that "Logic=God" ...your words exactly! But nothing equals God.

Since you've been completely unable to support your belief in a God who is clearly neither omnipotent or omniscient, who must conform to human logic and sentience, you've taken to hurling insults at everything that moves... other than Rawlings, who you have shown a deep affinity and admiration for all through this thread. Amid your cheap shots, you consistently try to lie and manipulate the conversation, morphing things that have been said into quite the opposite, so that you can strut around like a billy-bad-ass. I've lost count at the number of sheer lies you've told about me and my viewpoints, but that doesn't really matter to me because everyone here is dismissing you as the kook you are now. So you've buried yourself with your big fat arrogant mouth.

Yeah. I do admire his posts. They're brilliant. So what? I don't envy his brilliance. I applaud it. I've learned tons from him and how to write much better. No one ever took the time to tell me how to write better before. And just reading his posts has helped me get even better. So what? I'm no fool. I'm wise enough to see brilliance and learn from it, not argue with it like a damn fool. I'm a brilliant plumber, have designed original systems. That's my schooling since the age I could hold a wrench. I've got patents on designs used in real homes. You think you or Rawlings can do what I do? I don't think so. What a phony. You just said his argument is brilliant, and there's no doubt about that. Only total morons like Hollie and Fancy Pants can't see that. GT knows it's brilliant but won't admit it. He's smart enough to get that. What a bunch of phonies. So now you're saying that logic doesn't prove things, pretending that you just replaced CAN'T KNOW with CAN'T PROVE? Okay, punk, so stop trying to manipulate Fancy Pants and just tell her you’re not following proper academic standards but just making up your own standards. Tell her the truth, punk.

 

[Justin Davis]

Kay man

Kay punk. Showing off for forum bimbos, doesn't know the editing standards for problematic. Look who the real pretentious show off is. Yepper it's GT again. Heck, I didn't know that obviously. But only you are damn fool enough to challenge Rawlings on word smithing. Twice now, getting your butt handed to you on a platter. Informal fallacies apply to axioms. Idiot. You never learn. What a fool you are.

 

[G.T.]

OK dude.

 

[Boss]

If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.

I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.

We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.

"Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.

But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's just amazing to me that so many believers are so incredibly difficult to have a simple discussion with. They act as though placing their bias aside will betray their God.

It's just amazing that a Christian can't understand the evidence and proofs for God's existence, has been given them, claims they prove nothing. So let's see your Fancy Pants argument that proves these proofs are wrong. Where's this refutation of yours, dingbat? Oh but you didn’t even read or think about the proof did you?

 

[Justin Davis]

If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.

I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.

We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.

"Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.

But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.

I don't need you to tell me why 2+2=4 is true, why it is logically impossible for a finite mind to say "God the Creator doesn't exist" without contradicting yourself and proving the opposite is true in logic. You just admitted these things are logically true. You said these things were logically true before. Axioms are axioms. Logical proofs in math and in thought or spoken language are logical proofs. Logic proves or disproves things. If you're going to start taking like an idiot and say that logic doesn't prove things are true tell that to idiots like Fancy Pants, not me, cult leader . Fancy Pants will believe you because Fancy Pants is a gullible fool, can't think for herself, didn't pay attention in school and is an ignoramus. If you're going to talk like an intelligent, educated person and make sense by saying that what logic proves to be true in our minds and in the temporal world might not be true ultimately in the spiritual world then I'll agree. But, hey, it might be true that pigs will spout wings some day and fly or that something can come from nothing too right? That's all you’re saying, idiot. Otherwise, go screw your brainwashed hoes and bros in your little cult following at home, cult leader.

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?

 

[Justin Davis]

OK dude.

You're damn right it's okay that I say you're lying because you are lying, and we all know that ....... except your new girlfriend Fancy Pants. Your "showing off for forum bimbos" sentences are down to monosyllabic words. And the next step is to look up your posts and quote them to show how you lied. Hey, liar, save me the time. You wrote the posts, so you can find them easier than me. Be honest and show everyone what you wrote.

I know you wrote them. Boss knows you wrote them. Everyone knows that but your new girlfriend Fancy Pants. Don't let your wife find out.

 

[Justin Davis]

Seems all they know how to do is attack. Not often a valid argument to make.

What is so bizarre is, I actually thought M.D. Rawlings made a really impressive argument at the start. You can go back and read where I praised his brilliance in putting together a sound syllogistic argument as challenged by the OP. However, I couldn't agree that he had "proven" God exists and I explained my reservations. Since then, he has been one vicious and rude son of a bitch.

At first, I was kind of taken aback by his attacking me, someone who had actually thought he made a sound argument. Here are all these Atheists who totally disagree with his argument top to bottom, and he picks ME to focus on attacking... it didn't make sense. Then I realized, it's because something I said was seen by him as totally undermining his argument. Because he thought what I said had threatened his viewpoint, I became the object of his angst and here we are.

I now realize his entire argument is rooted in the premise that human logic is above God. That God is somehow constrained by human logic and thought. And if we can't all pretend that is true, then his argument has a fatal flaw. Therefore, he is relegated to attacking someone who also believes in a Spiritual God, although MY God is omnipotent and omniscient and not subject to human emotions.

It's been really fascinating to watch he and Justin self-destruct his own argument for the sake of attacking a fellow believer in God.

Yeah, I have been an object of their attacks as well and I am a believer in God. Odd how these two posters behave.

What a pussy. They're attacking me. Ooooooh.

No you little punk you came on to this thread talking big poop poop about how there's no evidence or proof for God's existence. You got called on your poop poop. You were told to put up a proof for this poop poop or shut up your poop poop. You even thought you could talk poop poop to your betters rather than just civilly talk about what was being shared with you. But no you had to get all smartass and mouthy. It was especially unwise to think you could talk poop poop to Rawlings as if you were anywhere near his league intellectually. What a fool. That's like a gnat flying into an elephant. Guess who the gnat is, fool?

So where's YOUR PROOF for this poop poop of yours. Where's your proof, Fancy Pants? You haven't given one. You haven't answered any of the questions put to you. You haven't refuted the proof for God's existence given to you. When you say no proof has been given to you, you lie, punk. So if that's true how come we don't see any argument from you showing why that proof is not true, punk? Where's your refutation, punk? Nope. Don't see one. Looks like you're full of poop poop. Just another phony talking poop poop you can't back.

 

[Boss]

If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.

I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.

We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.

"Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.

But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.

I don't need you to tell me why 2+2=4 is true, why it is logically impossible for a finite mind to say "God the Creator doesn't exist" without contradicting yourself and proving the opposite is true in logic. You just admitted these things are logically true. You said these things were logically true before. Axioms are axioms. Logical proofs in math and in thought or spoken language are logical proofs. Logic proves or disproves things. If you're going to start taking like an idiot and say that logic doesn't prove things are true tell that to idiots like Fancy Pants, not me, cult leader . Fancy Pants will believe you because Fancy Pants is a gullible fool, can't think for herself, didn't pay attention in school and is an ignoramus. If you're going to talk like an intelligent, educated person and make sense by saying that what logic proves to be true in our minds and in the temporal world might not be true ultimately in the spiritual world then I'll agree. But, hey, it might be true that pigs will spout wings some day and fly or that something can come from nothing too right? That's all you’re saying, idiot. Otherwise, go screw your brainwashed hoes and bros in your little cult following at home, cult leader.

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?

Again, you go off the deep end claiming I have said things I didn't say and taking a position contrary to the position you previously took. It's like you're psychotic.

I don't know or care who "fancy pants" is, and couldn't care less about your latest obsession with denigrating someone who doesn't agree with you. I've already demonstrated how your concepts of "logic" are often completely untrue. Logic once told you that if you sailed too far west you'd fall off the earth. Aristotle used logic to say that things slow down because they become tired. Things have gravity because they long to be near earth. Things have levity because they want to be in the heavens. These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.

I'm really sorry if you are too stupid to get that. I can't fix stupid.

 

[Justin Davis]

Its not pointless, its a good question.

Proof hasn't been provided.

Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......

Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"

Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"? Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?

I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.

So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.

What are you chattering about now, fancy pants? I was talking to GT. He embarrassed himself way back before when he said there was a better word for Rawlings to use than "cognition" for the entire connotations of human mental activity in the English language, which there isn't though "consciousness" can be used sometimes. And he just got clobbered again trying to be what he accused Rawlings of. Yepper. Looks like GT is the real pretentious fool around these parts again. Look at Rawlings' post.

GT =

Odd, I don't recall this exchange.

Do you happen to have a link, fanboy?

I think we are being trolled

No you think wrong. GT is lying and you being the gullible little girl that you are bought it hook, line and sinker. I know he's lying. Boss knows he's lying. Rawlings can tell you he's lying. Hollie and seallybobo know he's lying. BreezeWood knows he's lying. Course they won't tell you the truth because they just kiss each others' ass. Everyone knows he's lying but you, sweet pea. So you kiss the asses of those who are lying to you either by commission or omission? Wow. How sick and self-degrading is that? You weren't here, dumbass, when he wrote his infamous post. What an idiot. Anyone can just tell you anything, you believe it and kiss their asses . . . except when people tell you the truth about God. That's just gay. And you say you're a theist.

 

[G.T.]

OK dude.

You're damn right it's okay that I say you're lying because you are lying, and we all know that ....... except your new girlfriend Fancy Pants. Your "showing off for forum bimbos" sentences are down to monosyllabic words. And the next step is to look up your posts and quote them to show how you lied. Hey, liar, save me the time. You wrote the posts, so you can find them easier than me. Be honest and show everyone what you wrote.

I know you wrote them. Boss knows you wrote them. Everyone knows that but your new girlfriend Fancy Pants. Don't let your wife find out.

Kay bro

 

[Justin Davis]

If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.

I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.

We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.

"Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.

But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.

I don't need you to tell me why 2+2=4 is true, why it is logically impossible for a finite mind to say "God the Creator doesn't exist" without contradicting yourself and proving the opposite is true in logic. You just admitted these things are logically true. You said these things were logically true before. Axioms are axioms. Logical proofs in math and in thought or spoken language are logical proofs. Logic proves or disproves things. If you're going to start taking like an idiot and say that logic doesn't prove things are true tell that to idiots like Fancy Pants, not me, cult leader . Fancy Pants will believe you because Fancy Pants is a gullible fool, can't think for herself, didn't pay attention in school and is an ignoramus. If you're going to talk like an intelligent, educated person and make sense by saying that what logic proves to be true in our minds and in the temporal world might not be true ultimately in the spiritual world then I'll agree. But, hey, it might be true that pigs will spout wings some day and fly or that something can come from nothing too right? That's all you’re saying, idiot. Otherwise, go screw your brainwashed hoes and bros in your little cult following at home, cult leader.

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?

Again, you go off the deep end claiming I have said things I didn't say and taking a position contrary to the position you previously took. It's like you're psychotic.

I don't know or care who "fancy pants" is, and couldn't care less about your latest obsession with denigrating someone who doesn't agree with you. I've already demonstrated how your concepts of "logic" are often completely untrue. Logic once told you that if you sailed too far west you'd fall off the earth. Aristotle used logic to say that things slow down because they become tired. Things have gravity because they long to be near earth. Things have levity because they want to be in the heavens. These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.

I'm really sorry if you are too stupid to get that. I can't fix stupid.

A psychotic cult leader calling those who hold to logical truth psychotic. Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?


Headline: Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!

These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.

Nope. Science is not directly based on the laws of logic. It's ultimately based on the laws of logic. In science, there's a middle man, empirical data, which is inductively processed to extract inferences of probability only, not absolutes. The inferences are always subject to revision or falsification. That's why the conclusions, not the laws of logic, of inductive reasoning are always less sure than the conclusions, not the laws of logic, of syllogistic, deductive reasoning, which is always true when properly based on rational/mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems, or mostly true when based on well-established empirical perceptions and theories . Sometimes information is wrong or incomplete. Sometimes logical fallacies go undetected. But the laws of logic, which are the things used to detect bad information, incomplete information or logical fallacies, are never wrong! The laws of logic that are always right hold that all of these things are necessarily true, and the laws of logic are proven to be true intuitively and have been proven to be true over and over again by the realities of historical experience.

Newton's theories of motion are true up to a point, but they are not always or universally true as previously thought because of insufficient knowledge, not because the laws of logic are wrong, cult leader. The laws of logic are always right, cult leader. Data and the laws of logic that are always right are not the same thing, cult leader. Your argument all messed up because it makes data and the laws of logic that are always right the same thing when they are not the same thing, cult leader. See, I been reading and thinking real hard about what Rawlings has been proving to be right on this thread. He knows what he's talking about. You relativist clowns don't know what you're talking about. Now thank me for straightening you out, cult leader.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

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 time Blowhard BreezeWind 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.

He's been given an answer, Missy,

not once, some stupid reply about Emily wouldn't let you .....

just for the record, is mr. carnivore above illogical -

is that hard to understand ?

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 -


I am the way and the truth and the life =/= No one comes to the Father except through me.

are you just stupid or just unwilling to respond ?

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

He's been given an answer, Missy,

not once, some stupid reply about Emily wouldn't let you .....

just for the record, is mr. carnivore above illogical -

is that hard to understand ?

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 -


I am the way and the truth and the life =/= No one comes to the Father except through me.

are you just stupid or just unwilling to respond ?

.

BreezeWood's Fifteen Minutes of Fame

BreezeWood: Hi, my name's BreezeWood. I believe in the Everlasting, but not really, because I don't really know what that is, but it's got something to be with Noah and all that stuff . . . you know, whatever. Something came before the Singularity or maybe it was after . . . but, you know, whatever.

Christians are really evil people and stuff. They're poop-poop heads. I don't like them. I had a dream once in which this Christian was talking to Noah and suddenly the Singularity butted in and handed the Christian a flower.

And do you know what happened to the flower in the hand of that evil, poop-poop head Christian?

No. Tell me what happened

It wilted.

And do you know what happened after that?

No. Tell me what happened.

Well, then the Singularity handed Noah a flower.

And do you know what happened to the flower?

No. Tell me what happened.

It changed into a tree and grew really big just like that. It was like magic . . . or whatever.

And do you know what happened after that?

Uh . . . no, BreezeWood. This is your dream. Tells me what happened.

Oh, that's right. Giggle

Noah raised his hand and spoke to the tree.

And do you know what happened after that?

No!

The leaves blew off it's branches and from these leaves other trees sprung out of the ground . . . and then their leaves blew off their branches . . . and more trees sprung up . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and . . .

Whack

Oh, sorry. Giggle This went on and on until there was a whole forest of trees as far as the eye could see . . . and then Noah raised his hand and told the trees to stop making more trees, and they stopped. It was like magic . . . or whatever.

And do you know what happened after that?

Did someone slap the silly out of you, BreezeWood?

Oh, no. Noah was very nice to me. But that Christian gave me a dirty look.

And do you know what happened after that?

I said, do you know what happened after that?

Did the Christian try to kill you, BreezeWood?

Oh, no. That nice man Noah wouldn't let him. But he did give me another dirty look.

Do you want me to tell you what happened after that?

Would it stop you if I said no?

Oh, no. Giggle

Uh-huh. So what happened, BreezeWood?

Well, the Christian and Noah started cutting down the trees and rendering their trunks into lumber.

And do you know what they did with all that lumber?

I said, do you know what they did with all that lumber?

No. But I know what I'm going to do with my fist if you ask me another question, BreezeWood. This is your dream, BreezeWood. Don't ask anymore questions. Just tell me the story of your dream or die.

Oh, that's right. Giggle I forgot.

They built an Ark. And do you know. . . . Giggle I mean, all the animals of the Earth, one male and one female, came and went into the Ark, and the Christian counted the animals as they went into the Ark and gave the tally to Noah. And then Noah took a club and smashed it over the head of the Christian, which made me very happy, because Christians are evil poop-poop heads. And then it started to rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and . . .

Whack

Oh, sorry. Giggle Well, Noah and all the animals on the Ark were just fine, but the whole wide world was flooded and everything else died. Then the waters receded and the Ark came to rest on a mountain top . . . and Noah and the animals came out of the Ark and had life everlasting. And the best part is that there were no more poop-poop head Christians around ever again because they all died in the Flood. This made me very happy because Christians are evil poop-poop heads. Giggle

What happened to the Singularity?

The Singularity died too. Giggle

The End.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Again, you go off the deep end claiming I have said things I didn't say and taking a position contrary to the position you previously took. It's like you're psychotic.

I don't know or care who "fancy pants" is, and couldn't care less about your latest obsession with denigrating someone who doesn't agree with you. I've already demonstrated how your concepts of "logic" are often completely untrue. Logic once told you that if you sailed too far west you'd fall off the earth. Aristotle used logic to say that things slow down because they become tired. Things have gravity because they long to be near earth. Things have levity because they want to be in the heavens. These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.

I'm really sorry if you are too stupid to get that. I can't fix stupid.

Boss' Special Knowledge is Weird

So do I. As I said before it's rather ingenious . . . at first blush, if we pretend the problems don't exist. Generally, it's an old idea, a failed idea, one better suited to materialism proper, but his particular take on it is rare, not new to me, because I considered it from this angle years ago when I was still an atheist, but rare, more sophisticated than most of the historical renditions.

But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omniscient, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things. God doesn't have to think about anything. What does He need logic for? Boom! The perfect knowledge of all of existence or potential existents is in God's mind all at once and all the "time."

But only those who go Wow and stop thinking are going to buy it.

For the question arises, one that we're apparently not permitted to ask if Boss is right, that I'm an idiot and a liar: well, does God hold that all things are one and the same thing?

How could that be? Does God know there's a difference between dogs and cats, or not? And if He doesn't, how can He have all-knowledge? More to the point, how can He have less knowledge than we have? God must have the delineating logic of the three laws of thought!

Any way we go at it, we cannot escape thinking about Him as one Who has a mind just like ours, albeit, infinitely greater. And we cannot think how His logic could possibly be different than ours. God's logic is eternal, for it is His preexistent logic endowed to us, not created! If we're wrong, we're wrong. But that wouldn't make any difference to us. Any attempt to negate this apparent necessity is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves the opposite must be true. God did not create logic!

And the final issue: God, by definition, is all-knowing; hence, He would know that we can't logically hold that He doesn't have logic and that He doesn't have or didn't have (pantheism/panentheism) a mind like ours, though one much, much greater. So a perfect God, knowing this, intentionally gave us minds and a form of logic that leads us to believe things that are not true about Him, a form of logic that, ultimately, gives us no certainty about anything? Indeed, where does Boss get off asserting this apparent absurdity as an absolute fact when the ramifications of his very own premise assert that nothing is absolutely certain?

Special pleading? Special knowledge? Special logic? Boss knows something the rest of us don't?

That's weird.

 

[Justin Davis]

BreezeWood's Fifteen Minutes of Fame

BreezeWood: Hi, my name's BreezeWood. I believe in the Everlasting, but not really, because I don't really know what that is, but it's got something to be with Noah and all that stuff . . . you know, whatever. Something came before the Singularity or maybe it was after . . . but, you know, whatever.

Christians are really evil people and stuff. They're poop-poop heads. I don't like them. I had a dream once in which this Christian was talking to Noah and suddenly the Singularity butted in and handed the Christian a flower.

And do you know what happened to the flower in the hand of that evil, poop-poop head Christian?

No. Tell me what happened

It wilted.

And do you know what happened after that?

No. Tell me what happened.

Well, then the Singularity handed Noah a flower.

And do you know what happened to the flower?

No. Tell me what happened.

It changed into a tree and grew really big just like that. It was like magic . . . or whatever.

And do you know what happened after that?

Uh . . . no, BreezeWood. This is your dream. Tells me what happened.

Oh, that's right. Giggle

Noah raised his hand and spoke to the tree.

And do you know what happened after that?

No!

The leaves blew off it's branches and from these leaves other trees sprung out of the ground . . . and then their leaves blew off their branches . . . and more trees sprung up . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and . . .

Whack

Oh, sorry. Giggle This went on and on until there was a whole forest of trees as far as the eye could see . . . and then Noah raised his hand and told the trees to stop making more trees, and they stopped. It was like magic . . . or whatever.

And do you know what happened after that?

Did someone slap the silly out of you, BreezeWood?

Oh, no. Noah was very nice to me. But that Christian gave me a dirty look.

And do you know what happened after that?

I said, do you know what happened after that?

Did the Christian try to kill you, BreezeWood?

Oh, no. That nice man Noah wouldn't let him. But he did give me another dirty look.

Do you want me to tell you what happened after that?

Would it stop you if I said no?

Oh, no. Giggle

Uh-huh. So what happened, BreezeWood?

Well, the Christian and Noah started cutting down the trees and rendering their trunks into lumber.

And do you know what they did with all that lumber?

I said, do you know what they did with all that lumber?

No. But I know what I'm going to do with my fist if you ask me another question, BreezeWood. This is your dream, BreezeWood. Don't ask anymore questions. Just tell me the story of your dream or die.

Oh, that's right. Giggle I forgot.

They built an Ark. And do you know. . . . Giggle I mean, all the animals of the Earth, one male and one female, came and went into the Ark, and the Christian counted the animals as they went into the Ark and gave the tally to Noah. And then Noah took a club and smashed it over the head of the Christian, which made me very happy, because Christians are evil poop-poop heads. And then it started to rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and . . .

Whack

Oh, sorry. Giggle Well, Noah and all the animals on the Ark were just fine, but the whole wide world was flooded and everything else died. Then the waters receded and the Ark came to rest on a mountain top . . . and Noah and the animals came out of the Ark and had life everlasting. And the best part is that there were no more poop-poop head Christians around ever again because they all died in the Flood. This made me very happy because Christians are evil poop-poop heads. Giggle

What happened to the Singularity?

The Singularity died too. Giggle

The End.

 

[Inevitable]

Seems all they know how to do is attack. Not often a valid argument to make.

What is so bizarre is, I actually thought M.D. Rawlings made a really impressive argument at the start. You can go back and read where I praised his brilliance in putting together a sound syllogistic argument as challenged by the OP. However, I couldn't agree that he had "proven" God exists and I explained my reservations. Since then, he has been one vicious and rude son of a bitch.

At first, I was kind of taken aback by his attacking me, someone who had actually thought he made a sound argument. Here are all these Atheists who totally disagree with his argument top to bottom, and he picks ME to focus on attacking... it didn't make sense. Then I realized, it's because something I said was seen by him as totally undermining his argument. Because he thought what I said had threatened his viewpoint, I became the object of his angst and here we are.

I now realize his entire argument is rooted in the premise that human logic is above God. That God is somehow constrained by human logic and thought. And if we can't all pretend that is true, then his argument has a fatal flaw. Therefore, he is relegated to attacking someone who also believes in a Spiritual God, although MY God is omnipotent and omniscient and not subject to human emotions.

It's been really fascinating to watch he and Justin self-destruct his own argument for the sake of attacking a fellow believer in God.

Yeah, I have been an object of their attacks as well and I am a believer in God. Odd how these two posters behave.

Are you saying that God the Creator doesn't exist, fancy pants?

I am flattered you fancy my pants.

And for the second time, no.