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

[M.D. Rawlings]

Summary Post - Part I

All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As divine consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (See Post #4194.).


Let us review:

It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

That's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound reductio ad absurdum of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.​

The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the subject-object dichotomy) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as the principle of identity): the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (See Posts #4195 and #4208).

Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator does exist!

 

[Inevitable]

Apparently one must take leave of all there senses to be a believer.

Good thing we all don't think that way.

Btw out of curiosity are you atheist?

I'm a non-believer in any of the asserted gawds, past and present.

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.

You're right. It's as though any questioning of their views is a part of some conspiracy.

I think the conspiracy exists but is within their own mind.

Oh look, everybody, fancy pants thinks whack job Hollie's post makes sense. No surprise there.

You aren't getting into my pants no matter how many times you say that are fancy.

 

[Inevitable]

No, its not really ringing a bell you overly obsessed creepy weirdo.

Ooh, look, he's trying to impress his girlfriend fancy pants. How creepy is that?

The only person/people trying to impress anyone on the internet is you and your mancrush.

Your fawning for m.d. and his for you is magical. You guys should meet for a swan boat ride, and bring something to wet your thumbs. They don't like you reaching outside the boat.

He keeps telling me how fancy my pants are.

 

[Hollie]

Summary Post - Part I

All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As divine consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (See Post #4194.).


Let us review:

It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

That's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound reductio ad absurdum of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.​

The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the subject-object dichotomy) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as the principle of identity): the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (See Posts #4195 and #4208).

Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator does exist!

"All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."

False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.

The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better.

What a moron.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Summary Post - Part II

Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of irrationalism, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.

In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.

These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on (1) the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against (2) the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (Post #3945).

Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number: (1) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in Post #4194), (2) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in Post #4195) and (3) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.

The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (for any given A: A = A, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction): See Posts #2358, #2368, #2359 and #2405.

Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are not, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.

The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

Hence, The Seven Things stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
_________________________________________

The Seven Things™ (Post #3935, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/).

The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (Posts #3944, #3945 #4463 and #3941, [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/).The']http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/[/URL]).

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ (Post #3934, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122815/)

Divine Sentience
#3918
#3919
#3920
#3921

 

[Justin Davis]

Summary Post - Part I

All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As divine consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (See Post #4194.).


Let us review:

It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

That's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound reductio ad absurdum of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.​

The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the subject-object dichotomy) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as the principle of identity): the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (See Posts #4195 and #4208).

Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator does exist!

"All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."

False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.

The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better.

What a moron.

In your case, Hollie, and in the case of the moron who stupidly agreed with you, inanimate mindlessness is the nearest equivalent to the quality of your consciousness, which is just about that zero baseline.

 

[Inevitable]

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.

Nothing but ad hominem garbage. That is all you post.

And you think there is a conspiracy? Seems a bit paranoid.

 

[Inevitable]

Summary Post - Part I

All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As divine consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (See Post #4194.).


Let us review:

It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

That's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound reductio ad absurdum of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.​

The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the subject-object dichotomy) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as the principle of identity): the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (See Posts #4195 and #4208).

Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator does exist!

"All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."

False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.

The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better.

What a moron.

In your case, Hollie, and in the case of the moron who stupidly agreed with you, inanimate mindlessness is the nearest equivalent to the quality of your consciousness, which is just about that zero baseline.

Blah blah blah. Nothing but ad hominem.

 

[Hollie]

Summary Post - Part I

All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As divine consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (See Post #4194.).


Let us review:

It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

That's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound reductio ad absurdum of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.​

The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the subject-object dichotomy) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as the principle of identity): the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (See Posts #4195 and #4208).

Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator does exist!

"All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."

False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.

The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better.

What a moron.

In your case, Hollie, and in the case the moron he stupidity agreed with you, inanimate mindlessness is nearest equivalent to the quality of your consciousness.

A classic example of a confused, incoherent Rawling'ism

 

[Inevitable]

Summary Post - Part I

All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As divine consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (See Post #4194.).


Let us review:

It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

That's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound reductio ad absurdum of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.​

The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the subject-object dichotomy) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as the principle of identity): the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (See Posts #4195 and #4208).

Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator does exist!

"All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."

False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.

The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better.

What a moron.

In your case, Hollie, and in the case the moron he stupidity agreed with you, inanimate mindlessness is nearest equivalent to the quality of your consciousness.

A classic example of a confused, incoherent Rawling'ism

This isn't even fun any more.

 

[Justin Davis]

Summary Post - Part I

All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As divine consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (See Post #4194.).


Let us review:

It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensically objective standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

That's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound reductio ad absurdum of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.​

The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the subject-object dichotomy) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as the principle of identity): the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (See Posts #4195 and #4208).

Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator does exist!

 

[Hollie]

Summary Post - Part II

Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of irrationalism, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.

In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.

These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on (1) the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against (2) the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (Post #3945).

Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number: (1) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in Post #4194), (2) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in Post #4195) and (3) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.

The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (for any given A: A = A, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction): See Posts #2358, #2368, #2359 and #2405.

Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are not, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.

The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

Hence, The Seven Things stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
_________________________________________

The Seven Things™ (Post #3935, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/).

The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (Posts #3944, #3945 #4463 and #3941, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/).


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ (Post #3934, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122815/)

Divine Sentience
#3918
#3919
#3920
#3921

Oh my, the boys rattling on with the thoroughly discredited, soundly refuted and utterly pointless, The Seven Fraudulent Things™

 

[Justin Davis]

Summary Post - Part II

Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of irrationalism, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.

In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.

These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on (1) the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against (2) the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (Post #3945).

Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number: (1) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in Post #4194), (2) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in Post #4195) and (3) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.

The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (for any given A: A = A, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction): See Posts #2358, #2368, #2359 and #2405.

Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are not, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.

The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

Hence, The Seven Things stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
_________________________________________

The Seven Things™ (Post #3935, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/).

The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (Posts #3944, #3945 #4463 and #3941, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/).


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ (Post #3934, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122815/)

Divine Sentience
#3918
#3919
#3920
#3921

Brilliant!

 

[Justin Davis]

Summary Post - Part II

Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of irrationalism, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.

In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.

These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on (1) the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against (2) the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (Post #3945).

Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number: (1) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in Post #4194), (2) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in Post #4195) and (3) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.

The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (for any given A: A = A, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction): See Posts #2358, #2368, #2359 and #2405.

Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are not, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.

The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

Hence, The Seven Things stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
_________________________________________

The Seven Things™ (Post #3935, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/).

The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (Posts #3944, #3945 #4463 and #3941, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/).


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ (Post #3934, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122815/)

Divine Sentience
#3918
#3919
#3920
#3921

Oh my, the boys rattling on with the thoroughly discredited, soundly refuted and utterly pointless, The Seven Fraudulent Things™

So where's the link for your seven stupid things again so I can demolish them. I'm ready to take a crack at them.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce)

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 conflict 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 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." I turn to the camera: "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 that are logically necessary. 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 defending 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 a 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 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.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Four 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.

The Four Refusals:

1. "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!

2. "I refuse to believe what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

3. "I don't care what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

4. "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, 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.

 

[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.

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.

LMAO @ "Laws" of logic! Now they are no longer "God's Logic" but "LAWS of Logic!" Oooooo! We must never question the LAW! No matter what we think, it's the LAW! This special pleading has gotten way out of hand with you two. There is no "law of logic" which supersedes God the Creator. Like I said, if God wants 2+2=5 then you will instantaneously understand that is logical and any previous understanding will be as if it never existed. God has that kind of power. For all WE know, 2+2=3 yesterday and that memory has been replaced by 2+2=4 today... can you prove that's not true? The arrow of time could have stopped for 50 million years while God cleaned the wax out of His ears and we have no recollection of it happening because God "paused" time.

Human logic (the ONLY kind) is based on human perception, which is often times wrong or incomplete. As I demonstrated before... Logic was wrong about things with gravity, sailing to the west, etc. Now you are trying to write Logic a big pass and say the "data" was flawed, that's why we fucked up and made the wrong logical conclusions. Well no one was saying you could logically sail around the world but the data says you'll fall off the edge. Logic is ONLY based on human perception, nothing else. And human perception is not infallible.

 

[G.T.]

You'd have more of a potential to get laid once in a 'blue moon' if you weren't typing worthless pedantic ramblings that barely make any coherent sense and ad hom out the ass. Bookmarking your posts and cataloging them for future reference like this is some uber important shit you type when its a cluster fuck.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Cultish, Self-Deluded and Self-Brainwashed Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap, has Nothing but My Utter Contempt Now!


Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot! Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you. Your notion would directly overthrow pantheism/panentheism!

And, in the meantime, Amrchaos just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system," Boss, whether it be nature or God.

Just because you can't apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over your head.

That's your problem, not mine.

Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your 2 + 2 = 4 analogy earlier on this thread.


We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does not agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.

I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.

Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.
Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
so whatever logic God created for us on our level
is determining whatever we look at. it is always
limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.

Now I want to isolate this thought.

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Boss' failure to properly execute the distinction delineated by the second law of thought (the law of contradiction) is the essence of Boss' default to the irrationalism of relativism.

On the grounds of the absolute standard for objectivity, the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the logically highest conceivable standard for divine attribution without begging the question:

[indent[God's creative powers are infinitely unlimited, bound by nothing but His nature of absolute perfection. Our creative powers are limited to contriving humanly conceivable things out of preexistent materials. God's knowledge/understanding is infinitely unlimited. Our knowledge is finite as our minds our finite. God is at most immanently and transcendently everywhere, contingent on nothing else but His very own Being. We can only be in one place at a time as far as we know or can tell.

The laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity) ≠ Informational Knowledge.

Hence, we have the distinction between (1) operational knowledge (the laws of thought) and (2) informational knowledge (the detailed facts/actualities of existence).[/indent]


We can imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We can imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain how God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.


In other words:

1. How could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity: for any given A: A = A? God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?

2. How could God not hold or be bound by the law of contradiction: for any two or more propositions NOT(A = NOT-A)? God holds that two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions are true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?

3. How could God not hold or be bound by the law of the excluded middle: for all A: A OR ~A? God does not hold that either the positive or the negative form of any given proposition of a single predicate is true, but that both the positive and the negative form would be true at the time? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?​

Hence, Boss' refusal to believe that our logic is not God's uncreated logic divinely bestowed on us is an absurdity and/or an inherent contradiction of self-negation that positively proves the opposite is logically true.

That is the inescapably reality of human cognition. For any given A: A = A. It is what it is. If this axiom of human cognition is not ultimately or transcendentally true, nothing is sure. Nothing we assert about anything is necessarily true. Yet Boss claims, not only to believe all of kinds things, but to know all kinds of things based on A: A ≠ A!

Boss is outside his mind. God is not a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos. It is Boss, not God, who is the relativist. Hence, Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap!

Here's the real irony in all of this: at one point Boss held that the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is logically true insofar as God's existence is concerned, but the TAG is a double proof. It necessarily holds that (1) God exists and that (2) God is the universal Principle of Identity!

According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.

Knock Knock

Anybody home?