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

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is no hardwired fact of human psychology. That's pretty freaky to make those kinds of pointless statements and expect to be taken seriously.

The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!

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.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is no hardwired fact of human psychology. That's pretty freaky to make those kinds of pointless statements and expect to be taken seriously.

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Baby Jane Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations. Heck, if Baby Jane Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the meantime, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

 

[Hollie]

There is no hardwired fact of human psychology. That's pretty freaky to make those kinds of pointless statements and expect to be taken seriously.

The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!

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.

That nonsense is right out of your fundamentalist Christian ministries.

There are no Laws of human thought that are bioneurologically Hardwired.

Yet another of specious claims, utterly unsupported.

 

[Hollie]

There is no hardwired fact of human psychology. That's pretty freaky to make those kinds of pointless statements and expect to be taken seriously.

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Baby Jane Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations. Heck, if Baby Jane Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the meantime, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

How sad for you. With your pointless claims completely dismantled, you're left to behaving like a petulant child.

 

[orogenicman]

your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man

nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan

my job was done well, here. self high five!~

Hollie and company.

You're so befuddled, you can't keep track of who you're responding to.

Let go of the fear and superstition that causes you such angst. Your anger and self-hate is destructive to mind and body.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?

More word salad. Okay?

 

[orogenicman]

your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man

nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan

my job was done well, here. self high five!~

I agree. Poor thing. I think he needs to be admitted to a crisis management facility before he ends up in full meltdown mode.

Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy

Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life might (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids (except for the few simpler, more durable amino acids), let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.

Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans' depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.

Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis.

In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out.

And you do realize—don't you?—that equating one of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.

Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these . . . articles of faith handy?



At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!

I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it's just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?

Materialism: thy name is magic.

Wow, even more word salad. Amazing.

 

[haissem123]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

FROM HERE ON OUT?
i thought you were employing satire in every single post youve made.

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?


Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles 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?


Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles 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: $%^&@#*+!


orogenicman: Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!


Emily: Can't we all just get along?


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:

 

[orogenicman]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

Today must be word salad day. Did I miss the memo?

 

[Hollie]

your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man

nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan

my job was done well, here. self high five!~

I agree. Poor thing. I think he needs to be admitted to a crisis management facility before he ends up in full meltdown mode.

Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy

Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life might (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids (except for the few simpler, more durable amino acids), let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.

Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans' depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.

Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis.

In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out.

And you do realize—don't you?—that equating one of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.

Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these . . . articles of faith handy?



At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!

I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it's just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?

Materialism: thy name is magic.

Wow, even more word salad. Amazing.

It's also tedious. The crank has a several page long Microsoft Word document that is used to selectively and alternately cut / paste / reorder and dump into one thread after another.

 

[orogenicman]

Nothing's true except what I say.

Spoken like a true nutcase. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man

nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan

my job was done well, here. self high five!~

I agree. Poor thing. I think he needs to be admitted to a crisis management facility before he ends up in full meltdown mode.

Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy

Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life might (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids (except for the few simpler, more durable amino acids), let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.

Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans' depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.

Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis.

In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out.

And you do realize—don't you?—that equating one of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.

Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these . . . articles of faith handy?



At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!

I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it's just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?

Materialism: thy name is magic.

Wow, even more word salad. Amazing.

It's also tedious. The crank has a several page long Microsoft Word document that is used to selectively and alternately cut / paste / reorder and dump into one thread after another.

I suspect that English is not his native language.

 

[Hollie]

FROM HERE ON OUT?
i thought you were employing satire in every single post youve made.

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: $%^&@#*+!


orogenicman: Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!


Emily: Can't we all just get along?


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:

The above is a version of a time wasting exercise the boy has cut and pasted multiple times in this thread.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Spoken like a true nutcase.

Baby Jane orogenicman

Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

Today must be word salad day. Did I miss the memo?

Magical abiogenesis! It's all true, I tell you!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I suspect that English is not his native language.

I suspect science is not your first anything. . . .

 

[orogenicman]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

Today must be word salad day. Did I miss the memo?

<snip>

Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!

The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet. What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?

 

[haissem123]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

Today must be word salad day. Did I miss the memo?

Magical abiogenesis! It's all true, I tell you!

God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

Today must be word salad day. Did I miss the memo?

<snip>

Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!

The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet. What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?

we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.

 

[orogenicman]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

Today must be word salad day. Did I miss the memo?

Magical abiogenesis! It's all true, I tell you!

God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

Today must be word salad day. Did I miss the memo?

<snip>

Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!

The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet. What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?

we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.

The unknown is not unknowable. Stay tuned.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

Today must be word salad day. Did I miss the memo?

Magical abiogenesis! It's all true, I tell you!

God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death, then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.

Today must be word salad day. Did I miss the memo?

<snip>

Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!

The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet. What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?

we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.

I'm a theist, ya big dummy, lampooning the atheists. Pay attention.