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

[M.D. Rawlings]

The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh


The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of duh backed by nothing)
______________________

Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!


Rawlings:

You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​

Hollie: Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!

QW: The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is not universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.


Foxfyre: God is not omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves! I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove! You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.


BreezeWood: You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?


Rawlings: Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?


Inevitable: He won't answer the question!


Rawlings: Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does not follow?


Inevitable: $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!


Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!


GT: &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The a priori axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.


Rawlings: You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.

GT: &*?%#+*&^(@!


Seallybobo: Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.


Amrchaos: The objective, a priori axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.


Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.


Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!


Justin: These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.


Rawlings: You got that right.


All of the relativists in unison: Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!


Rawlings:

 

[G.T.]

The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty


The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of duh backed by nothing)
______________________

Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!


Rawlings:

You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​

Hollie: Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!

QW: The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic is not universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.


Foxfyre: God is not omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves! I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove! You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.


BreezeWood: You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?


Rawlings: Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember? LOL!


Inevitable: He won't answer the question!


Rawlings: Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does not follow?


Inevitable: $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!


Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!


GT: &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The a priori axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is., except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.


Rawlings: You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.

GT: &*?%#+*&^(@!


Seallybobo: Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer


Amrchaos: The objective, a priori axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.


Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.


Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!


Justin: These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.


Rawlings: You got that right.


All of the relativists in unison: Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!


Rawlings:

More self aggrandizement as an attempt to weasel your way out of irrelevance, md.

You're your own #1 fan, Justin bluemoon "logic isn't just a concept" dumbass rawlings.

derp derp derp derp

 

[Hollie]

The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty


The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of duh backed by nothing)
______________________

Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!


Rawlings:

You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​

Hollie: Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!

QW: The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic is not universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.


Foxfyre: God is not omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves! I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove! You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.


BreezeWood: You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?


Rawlings: Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember? LOL!


Inevitable: He won't answer the question!


Rawlings: Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does not follow?


Inevitable: $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!


Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!


GT: &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The a priori axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is., except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.


Rawlings: You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.

GT: &*?%#+*&^(@!


Seallybobo: Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer


Amrchaos: The objective, a priori axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.


Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.


Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!


Justin: These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.


Rawlings: You got that right.


All of the relativists in unison: Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!


Rawlings:

Another display of classic Rawling'isms. A lot of cutting and pasting while offering nothing of merit.

So, aside from your usual spam, we still know with confidence that your mindless chatter about the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!

 

[G.T.]

The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty


The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of duh backed by nothing)
______________________

Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!


Rawlings:

You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​

Hollie: Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!

QW: The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic is not universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.


Foxfyre: God is not omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves! I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove! You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.


BreezeWood: You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?


Rawlings: Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember? LOL!


Inevitable: He won't answer the question!


Rawlings: Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does not follow?


Inevitable: $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!


Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!


GT: &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The a priori axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is., except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.


Rawlings: You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.

GT: &*?%#+*&^(@!


Seallybobo: Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer


Amrchaos: The objective, a priori axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.


Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.


Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!


Justin: These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.


Rawlings: You got that right.


All of the relativists in unison: Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!


Rawlings:

Another display of classic Rawling'isms. A lot of cutting and pasting while offering nothing of merit.

So, aside from your usual spam, we still know with confidence that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!

it's kind of pathetic that he has all of his posts bookmarked and shit so that he can keep referring back to them as though theyre some sort of intelligent chronicles. what a hoot.

 

[Hollie]

The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty


The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of duh backed by nothing)
______________________

Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!


Rawlings:

You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​

Hollie: Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!

QW: The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic is not universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.


Foxfyre: God is not omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves! I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove! You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.


BreezeWood: You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?


Rawlings: Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember? LOL!


Inevitable: He won't answer the question!


Rawlings: Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does not follow?


Inevitable: $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!


Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!


GT: &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The a priori axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is., except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.


Rawlings: You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.

GT: &*?%#+*&^(@!


Seallybobo: Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer


Amrchaos: The objective, a priori axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.


Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.


Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!


Justin: These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.


Rawlings: You got that right.


All of the relativists in unison: Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!


Rawlings:

Another display of classic Rawling'isms. A lot of cutting and pasting while offering nothing of merit.

So, aside from your usual spam, we still know with confidence that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!

it's kind of pathetic that he has all of his posts bookmarked and shit so that he can keep referring back to them as though theyre some sort of intelligent chronicles. what a hoot.

He's like a toy doll with a pull string and finger hoop. Tug the string and the doll will rattle of one of several programmed messages.

 

[G.T.]

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
(scroll down to "counter arguments")

Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh

The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of duh backed by nothing)
______________________

Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!

Rawlings:

You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.

​

Hollie: Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!


QW: The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is not universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair and empirical data interpret themselves.


Foxfyre: God is not omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves! I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove! You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.


BreezeWood: You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?


Rawlings: Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?


Inevitable: He won't answer the question!


Rawlings: Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does not follow?


Inevitable: $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!


Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!


GT: &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The a priori axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.


Rawlings: You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.


GT: &*?%#+*&^(@!


Seallybobo: Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.


Amrchaos: The objective, a priori axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.


Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.


Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!


Justin: These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.


Rawlings: You got that right.


All of the relativists in unison: Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!


Rawlings:

More self aggrandizement as an attempt to weasel your way out of irrelevance, md.

You're your own #1 fan, Justin bluemoon "logic isn't just a concept" dumbass rawlings.

derp derp derp derp

Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. I'm a Kool-Aid Drinker of Duh.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
(scroll down to "counter arguments")

Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff

More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!

 

[Boss]

Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!

Cute, but totally NOT what I said. The "laws of thought" are human constructs for humans. Omniscient God doesn't need thought. Relativism is the belief that all truth is relative, which is not what I have argued or what I believe. I am not a Relativist. I have argued that we cannot know truth, we can only believe we know truth. God knows truth, God is omniscient. I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.

Rawlings, I don't hate you, I just believe you are wrong about your incarnation of God. The God I believe in is not constrained by or limited to the constructs of human thought. There is no need for the God I believe in to "think" or have sentience, human emotion, or even use logic. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created everything including humans, and by extension, all parameters of human thought.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

He's like a toy doll with a pull string and finger hoop. Tug the string and the doll will rattle of one of several programmed messages.

LOL! Pull on their strings and fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. I'm a Kool-Aid Drinker of Duh.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!

Cute, but totally NOT what I said. The "laws of thought" are human constructs for humans. Omniscient God doesn't need thought. Relativism is the belief that all truth is relative, which is not what I have argued or what I believe. I am not a Relativist. I have argued that we cannot know truth, we can only believe we know truth. God knows truth, God is omniscient. I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.

Rawlings, I don't hate you, I just believe you are wrong about your incarnation of God. The God I believe in is not constrained by or limited to the constructs of human thought. There is no need for the God I believe in to "think" or have sentience, human emotion, or even use logic. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created everything including humans, and by extension, all parameters of human thought.

True story.

 

[G.T.]

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
(scroll down to "counter arguments")

Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff

More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!

Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies.

I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.

I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."

You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.

 

[Justin Davis]

The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh


The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of duh backed by nothing)
______________________

Hollie: the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!


Rawlings:

You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​

Hollie: Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!

QW: The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is not universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.


Foxfyre: God is not omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves! I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove! You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.


BreezeWood: You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?


Rawlings: Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?


Inevitable: He won't answer the question!


Rawlings: Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does not follow?


Inevitable: $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!


Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!


GT: &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The a priori axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.


Rawlings: You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.

GT: &*?%#+*&^(@!


Seallybobo: Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.


Amrchaos: The objective, a priori axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.


Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.


Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!


Justin: These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.


Rawlings: You got that right.


All of the relativists in unison: Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!


Rawlings:

Classic! Nailed it. That's the funniest thing on this thread. Well, after today I'm out of here for awhile. The relativists will be happy.

 

[Justin Davis]

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
(scroll down to "counter arguments")

Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff

More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!

Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies.

I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.

I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."

You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.

No, you're the liar pretending that you can negate the axioms about divinity by saying their informal logical fallacies. So be logically consistent. That's means that all axioms and tautologies are informal logical fallacies. You're crap is just relativism. Pick and choose. That's what you relativist atheists do. If you were a real agnostic you wouldn't do that, phony. But that doesn't make them go away does it? Phony. You think you can just put links in your post from other relativist phonies from the internet like Kant is wrong or like logicians are wrong, like that means the rules of formal academics or the use of presuppositionals in modal logic and constructive just go away. Phony. No, they're still there. Your magic doesn't work.

 

[Justin Davis]

interestingly, the above quote is a certain summation of the two religious zealots - and their demonic, repressive religious dogmatism ... hook line and sinker.

grow up boys ...

.

Never a feather of what you're talking about just mumbo jumbo 24/7 from you. No one here even knows what you're talking about half the time. Slap some sense into yourself.

 

[Justin Davis]

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: No! I'm not telling you!

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.

Oh, I forgot. Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars. Inevitable asked no such thing. Looked at no such thing. Considered nothing. Thought about nothing. Understood nothing. Contributed nothing. Didn't even try. Bitch. Moan. Gossip. That's all he did.

The ranting of the religiously insane.

The ranting of the relativistically insane. Yeah. I see clearly what Rawlings is talking about now. I didn't get it at first.

 

[BreezeWood]

interestingly, the above quote is a certain summation of the two religious zealots - and their demonic, repressive religious dogmatism ... hook line and sinker.

grow up boys ...

.

Never a feather of what you're talking about just mumbo jumbo 24/7 from you. No one here even knows what you're talking about half the time. Slap some sense into yourself.

.

gunslinger, you are simply afraid of a critical analysis on the practical and demonstrative level you are not able to manipulate.

.

 

[G.T.]

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
(scroll down to "counter arguments")

Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff

More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!

Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies.

I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.

I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."

You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.

No, you're the liar pretending that you can negate the axioms about divinity by saying their informal logical fallacies. So be logically consistent. That's means that all axioms and tautologies are informal logical fallacies. You're crap is just relativism. Pick and choose. That's what you relativist atheists do. If you were a real agnostic you wouldn't do that, phony. But that doesn't make them go away does it? Phony. You think you can just put links in your post from other relativist phonies from the internet like Kant is wrong or like logicians are wrong, like that means the rules of formal academics or the use of presuppositionals in modal logic and constructive just go away. Phony. No, they're still there. Your magic doesn't work.

you just cant grasp that it's not even an axiom to begin with

youre dumb as rocks

 

[Hollie]

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: No! I'm not telling you!

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.

Oh, I forgot. Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars. Inevitable asked no such thing. Looked at no such thing. Considered nothing. Thought about nothing. Understood nothing. Contributed nothing. Didn't even try. Bitch. Moan. Gossip. That's all he did.

The ranting of the religiously insane.

The ranting of the relativistically insane. Yeah. I see clearly what Rawlings is talking about now. I didn't get it at first.

You never got it. You've been duped into the cult of two.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
(scroll down to "counter arguments")

Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff

More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!

Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies.

I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.

I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."

You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.

Yeah, well, in the meantime, real agnostics and absolutist atheists agree with me and hold that all you relativists, on this thread and on the Internet with your silly little videos, whatever your religious inclinations, are slap-happy out of your minds.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178804/