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

[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

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.

You're not doing a very good job. You also didn't answer my question:

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

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.

just fighting for fun

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

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.

You're not doing a very good job. You also didn't answer my question:

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?

that God works in mysterious ways?

 

[haissem123]

that we can't understand his majesty yet and appreciate it's mysteries. we think we have to conquer God and his heaven to become Gods in our own heaven. that is a big mistake for when we try this we spoil heaven and ourselves.

 

[orogenicman]

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

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.

just fighting for fun

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

<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.

You're not doing a very good job. You also didn't answer my question:

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?

that God works in mysterious ways?

It is only mysterious as long as we don't understand it, or don't care to understand it. That said, science solves mysteries, but that doesn't mean the phenomenon is any less wondrous. We know how rainbows form. But knowing how they form doesn't make them less wondrous and amazing.

 

[orogenicman]

that we can't understand his majesty yet and appreciate it's mysteries. we think we have to conquer God and his heaven to become Gods in our own heaven. that is a big mistake for when we try this we spoil heaven and ourselves.

I don't think this is true at all. Man does not try to solve problems to make himself a god. He solves those problems because they are usually serious problems that affect our lives, often in negative ways. We didn't cure smallpox to become gods. We cured smallpox because it was a heinous disease that killed millions. And by the way, where was your god when all those people died of this awful disease?

 

[G.T.]

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:

Kinda sucks when this post either proves you're a liar, or you don't comprehend half the shit you've read from other people.

All you do is dig yourself into the deeper "fake smart" hole. Gluck crawling out, dunce

 

[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?

<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?

Whoop-dee-doo!

You think you're telling me something I don't know?

How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure? It's not even close. And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells? The problem is staggeringly complex. It's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have had to have been jammed through the round hole a virtually infinite number of times.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[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?

Whoop-dee-doo!

You think you're telling me something I don't know?

How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure? It's not even close. And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells? The problem is staggeringly complex. It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I didn't ask you if it refuted anything. I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life. Well? By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others. Congratulations.

 

[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:

Kinda sucks when this post either proves you're a liar, or you don't comprehend half the shit you've read from other people.

All you do is dig yourself into the deeper "fake smart" hole. Gluck crawling out, dunce

Shut up! You're all a bunch of dummies.

 

[G.T.]

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?

Whoop-dee-doo!

You think you're telling me something I don't know?

How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure? It's not even close. And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells? The problem is staggeringly complex. It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I didn't ask you if it refuted anything. I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life. Well? By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others. Congratulations.

Before you go too far wasting your time on someone where the lights are on, but nobody's home - let me first warn you.

He deems the following as absolute proof of gods existence.

1. God created all knowledge.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. Therefore, god exists.

(And before the sadness of that stuns you in disbelief, you can ask him yourself if he finds that to be the case and then stop wasting your time trying to talk like a grown up to a little kid ).

 

[G.T.]

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:

Kinda sucks when this post either proves you're a liar, or you don't comprehend half the shit you've read from other people.

All you do is dig yourself into the deeper "fake smart" hole. Gluck crawling out, dunce

Shut up! You're all a bunch of dummies.

Pants on fire, snake oil salesman.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

Whoop-dee-doo!

You think you're telling me something I don't know?

How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure? It's not even close. And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells? The problem is staggeringly complex. It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I didn't ask you if it refuted anything. I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life. Well? By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others. Congratulations.

My article tells you what I think about it. Read it. And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science. If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings. Put up or shut up. Quote and refute, and watch what happens: the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.

 

[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?


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:

Kinda sucks when this post either proves you're a liar, or you don't comprehend half the shit you've read from other people.

All you do is dig yourself into the deeper "fake smart" hole. Gluck crawling out, dunce

Shut up! You're all a bunch of dummies.

They're so cute when they launch into their saliva slinging tirades.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Whoop-dee-doo!

You think you're telling me something I don't know?

How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure? It's not even close. And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells? The problem is staggeringly complex. It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I didn't ask you if it refuted anything. I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life. Well? By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others. Congratulations.

My article tells you what I think about it. Read it. And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science. If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings. Put up or shut up. Quote and refute, and watch what happens: the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.

Your article is a pathetic waste of time.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

Whoop-dee-doo!

You think you're telling me something I don't know?

How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure? It's not even close. And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells? The problem is staggeringly complex. It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I didn't ask you if it refuted anything. I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life. Well? By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others. Congratulations.

Before you go too far wasting your time on someone where the lights are on, but nobody's home - let me first warn you.

He deems the following as absolute proof of gods existence.

1. God created all knowledge.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. Therefore, god exists.

(And before the sadness of that stuns you in disbelief, you can ask him yourself if he finds that to be the case and then stop wasting your time trying to talk like a grown up to a little kid ).

Indeed. Such tautologies are a common occurrence among those highly brainwashed to believe in the unbelievable.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

Whoop-dee-doo!

You think you're telling me something I don't know?

How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure? It's not even close. And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells? The problem is staggeringly complex. It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I didn't ask you if it refuted anything. I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life. Well? By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others. Congratulations.

My article tells you what I think about it. Read it. And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science. If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings. Put up or shut up. Quote and refute, and watch what happens: the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.

I implied nothing. I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way. If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life? By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I implied nothing. I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way. If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life? By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".

You're imply nothing?

You just implied I don't know the answer to your silly question.

I answered that questioned. Read my article and you'll know the answer. I'm not going post a long and in-depth article on a complex issue on this forum. What's wrong with you? You have the link. Read it!

Besides, why do you think the findings of the Philae probe are such a big deal? The universe is littered with space debris containing organic molecules, some as old or older. Whoop-dee-doo. Why would the existence of the paltry number of organic molecules that can hold their composition outside living cells in the universe be something amazing. This only amazes those not well-versed in the actualities of prebiotic research.

 

[Boss]

I implied nothing. I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way. If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life? By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".

Why would any rational person, religious or otherwise, believe that organic molecules only existed on Earth... in all the vastness of our universe? I see nothing in this revelation which diminishes any belief in intelligent design. If omnipotent and omnipresent God created life on Earth, there is no reason to think God couldn't have done the same thing elsewhere. I am not an expert on Christian doctrine, but I don't know of anything in the Bible or Christianity which states it is absolutely impossible that God created life somewhere other than Earth. So where does this inference come from?

 

[Hollie]

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?

Whoop-dee-doo!

You think you're telling me something I don't know?

How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure? It's not even close. And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells? The problem is staggeringly complex. It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

I didn't ask you if it refuted anything. I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life. Well? By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others. Congratulations.

My article tells you what I think about it. Read it. And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science. If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings. Put up or shut up. Quote and refute, and watch what happens: the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.

I implied nothing. I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way. If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life? By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".

I answered that questioned. Read my article and you'll know the answer. Besides, why do you think the findings of the Philae probe are such a big deal? The universe is littered with space debris containing organic molecules, some as old or older. Whoop-dee-doo. Why would the existence of the paltry number of organic molecules that can hold their composition outside living cells in the universe be something amazing. This only amazes those not well-versed in the actualities of prebiotic research.

The discovery of precursor organic molecules as described is actually pretty devastating to christian extremists such as yourself.

 

[Boss]

The discovery of precursor organic molecules as described is actually pretty devastating to christian extremists such as yourself.

You really do need to provide something to support this assertion.