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

[Boss]

Nothing in that whimpering, weepy-eyed appeal to emotion comes close to suggesting gawds.

Again... Gods? Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Oompa Loompa? There is certainly something which operates as a 'governor' on the capacity and capability of raw human intelligence. Nature couldn't balance otherwise.

And Hollie... I'm not sure which browser you're using, but it needs an upgrade if it shows my posts to be whimpering or weepy-eyed. I think that maybe you are trying too hard to appeal to emotion here. Comments like these either make you feel better about your lack of substance or you think they appeal to like-minded readers who share your Atheist view.

 

[Hollie]

Nothing in that whimpering, weepy-eyed appeal to emotion comes close to suggesting gawds.

Again... Gods? Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Oompa Loompa? There is certainly something which operates as a 'governor' on the capacity and capability of raw human intelligence. Nature couldn't balance otherwise.

And Hollie... I'm not sure which browser you're using, but it needs an upgrade if it shows my posts to be whimpering or weepy-eyed. I think that maybe you are trying too hard to appeal to emotion here. Comments like these either make you feel better about your lack of substance or you think they appeal to like-minded readers who share your Atheist view.

There is no indication of a any supernatural "governor" as you insist there must be. And even if we entertain such a notion, it is just as likely to be Zeus as it is any of your gawds.

Nothing in that whimpering, weepy-eyed appeal to emotion comes close to suggesting gawds.

Again... Gods? Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Oompa Loompa? There is certainly something which operates as a 'governor' on the capacity and capability of raw human intelligence. Nature couldn't balance otherwise.

And Hollie... I'm not sure which browser you're using, but it needs an upgrade if it shows my posts to be whimpering or weepy-eyed. I think that maybe you are trying too hard to appeal to emotion here. Comments like these either make you feel better about your lack of substance or you think they appeal to like-minded readers who share your Atheist view.

There is no indication of any supernatural "governor" as you descibe your gawds. Secondly, even if we were to entertain such a notion, that supernatural "governor" is just as likely to be Zeus as any of your gawds.

The most basic rule of human sociality is non-zero-sum: no free lunch, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, reciprocity. This is because a society made up of cheaters will (obviously) become fraught with suspicion, distrust, and peril, and will eventually fall apart. So we come to a consensus, a social contract that we all agree to live by under threat of punishment (also agreed upon by the group), and voilà—law, order, and stability.

This is the template upon which all patterns of human society are formed. Here in the West, we've progressed through theocratic totalitarianism to liberal democracy. Thank goodness.

This template for writing the multifarious human dramas found throughout the world is highly effective in stabilizing the sometimes unpredictable dynamics of man and is often beneficent to each respective society. It wasn't until the agricultural revolution, between eight and ten thousand years ago, that we began to group together in numbers beyond 100-200, and before then we were always on the move looking for food, resources, and clement weather. In other words, there wasn't much potential for large-scale clashes of cultures and societies. Of course, all that has changed now.

 

[Boss]

There is no indication of any supernatural "governor" as you descibe your gawds.

That's because you are looking for something "supernatural" and it's not. Again, it's natural. It has to be natural and part of nature in order to balance it. You've not explained how it can't be. You can't explain it, not rationally anyway.

 

[Hollie]

There is no indication of any supernatural "governor" as you descibe your gawds.

That's because you are looking for something "supernatural" and it's not. Again, it's natural. It has to be natural and part of nature in order to balance it. You've not explained how it can't be. You can't explain it, not rationally anyway.

Nonsense. There is no rational explanation for your particular invention of supernatural gawds. If your gawds were a part of the natural world, they would be explainable, understandable, thus there would be no requirement for "faith" and no appeals to supernatural realms.

And you're correct, I have no explanation for your supernatural realms. Neither do you.

 

[Boss]

The most basic rule of human sociality is non-zero-sum: no free lunch, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, reciprocity. This is because a society made up of cheaters will (obviously) become fraught with suspicion, distrust, and peril, and will eventually fall apart. So we come to a consensus, a social contract that we all agree to live by under threat of punishment (also agreed upon by the group), and voilà—law, order, and stability.

Nonsense. If that were so, there would have never been any wars or social instabilities, we'd all simply agree to abide by social compacts because that would be our natural inclination. Law, order and stability would be all we understood, and that is simply not what we see in the world. I understand this is your argument because it supports your "non-God" view, but it doesn't comport with the observable facts of nature.

I'll point it out again, we humans are smart enough to figure things out... We can easily figure out how to get around any social contract, it's not that hard to do for a human. So we have to understand there is something that binds us to such contracts, which keeps us 'in check' and working to form such contracts with integrity and honor them. Fundamentally, it all goes back to the human awareness of something greater than self, something beyond the individual and our purpose.

 

[Boss]

Nonsense. There is no rational explanation for your particular invention of supernatural gawds. If your gawds were a part of the natural world, they would be explainable, understandable, thus there would be no requirement for "faith" and no appeals to supernatural realms.

And you're correct, I have no explanation for your supernatural realms. Neither do you.

They're not my invention nor are they supernatural. I've explained why this must exist in humans and we couldn't exist without it. Now you can keep on insisting this is "supernatural" with every breathless response you make, but it doesn't make that so. Something that is naturally part of nature is not (by definition) supernatural. Our spirituality is a requirement to balance humanity with the rest of nature, and I have adequately explained that.

 

[Hollie]

The most basic rule of human sociality is non-zero-sum: no free lunch, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, reciprocity. This is because a society made up of cheaters will (obviously) become fraught with suspicion, distrust, and peril, and will eventually fall apart. So we come to a consensus, a social contract that we all agree to live by under threat of punishment (also agreed upon by the group), and voilà—law, order, and stability.

Nonsense. If that were so, there would have never been any wars or social instabilities, we'd all simply agree to abide by social compacts because that would be our natural inclination. Law, order and stability would be all we understood, and that is simply not what we see in the world. I understand this is your argument because it supports your "non-God" view, but it doesn't comport with the observable facts of nature.

I'll point it out again, we humans are smart enough to figure things out... We can easily figure out how to get around any social contract, it's not that hard to do for a human. So we have to understand there is something that binds us to such contracts, which keeps us 'in check' and working to form such contracts with integrity and honor them. Fundamentally, it all goes back to the human awareness of something greater than self, something beyond the individual and our purpose.

You exactly confirmed my comments. There were no inventions of gawds required for societies to social constructs that provided for the better good of the community. The better good always comes from the greater cooperation.

This has nothing to do with your inventions of gawds and spirit realms. Early societies had no conception of your inventions of gawds but understood the benefits of shared responsibility.

You hope to attribute your inventions of gawds and spirit realms to cultures that had no use for them. It's pointless to try and retroactively apply and attach your gawds to cultures that never invented them.

 

[Boss]

You exactly confirmed my comments. There were no inventions of gawds required for societies to social constructs that provided for the better good of the community. The better good always comes from the greater cooperation.

This has nothing to do with your inventions of gawds and spirit realms. Early societies had no conception of your inventions of gawds but understood the benefits of shared responsibility.

You hope to attribute your inventions of gawds and spirit realms to cultures that had no use for them. It's pointless to try and retroactively apply and attach your gawds to cultures that never invented them.

Even in your explanation you are failing to explain WHY we understand these things. What makes us consciously aware of "the better good" as you put it? Lions and sharks don't have this ability, they simply behave in accordance with natural instinct. Humans are certainly smart enough to realize they don't have to share responsibility or work together for some common good, fuck that business! But SOMETHING causes humans to not adhere to natural instincts, to rationalize something greater, some higher reason... "the better good" ...the benefits to shared responsibility, etc.

It's not an "invention of gawds and spiritual realms" causing that because there is no rationale behind such a thing. The stuff you are talking about is a manifestation of the same intrinsic understanding of something greater than self. It is because of this completely natural inclination that we have developed man-made "inventions of gawds and spirit realms" in order to try and better understand the thing itself.

 

[Hollie]

You exactly confirmed my comments. There were no inventions of gawds required for societies to social constructs that provided for the better good of the community. The better good always comes from the greater cooperation.

This has nothing to do with your inventions of gawds and spirit realms. Early societies had no conception of your inventions of gawds but understood the benefits of shared responsibility.

You hope to attribute your inventions of gawds and spirit realms to cultures that had no use for them. It's pointless to try and retroactively apply and attach your gawds to cultures that never invented them.

Even in your explanation you are failing to explain WHY we understand these things. What makes us consciously aware of "the better good" as you put it? Lions and sharks don't have this ability, they simply behave in accordance with natural instinct. Humans are certainly smart enough to realize they don't have to share responsibility or work together for some common good, fuck that business! But SOMETHING causes humans to not adhere to natural instincts, to rationalize something greater, some higher reason... "the better good" ...the benefits to shared responsibility, etc.

It's not an "invention of gawds and spiritual realms" causing that because there is no rationale behind such a thing. The stuff you are talking about is a manifestation of the same intrinsic understanding of something greater than self. It is because of this completely natural inclination that we have developed man-made "inventions of gawds and spirit realms" in order to try and better understand the thing itself.

Even with my clear description of WHY societies understood the benefits of cooperation, you still insist on retroactively inserting your gawds into cultures that had no use or conception for them.

You still refuse to understand or consider the fact that gawds are superfluous in the formation of societal constructs. Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all. Human cooperation had been the driving force that promoted cohesion and allowed for the greater good.

 

[Boss]

Even with my clear description of WHY societies understood the benefits of cooperation, you still insist on retroactively inserting your gawds into cultures that had no use or conception for them.

You still refuse to understand or consider the fact that gawds are superfluous in the formation of societal constructs. Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all. Human cooperation had been the driving force that promoted cohesion and allowed for the greater good.

First of all, you haven't explained why societies understood these things, you simply asserted they did understand them. Secondly, I didn't retroactively insert anything. I merely pointed out that the "thing" which causes humans to have the concept of "greater good" is spiritual awareness. You and I both agree that human cooperation has been the driving force that prompted cohesion and allowed for the greater good. I've explained why we have that and you have not.

 

[Boss]

Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.

You will need to present evidence of this to make the claim. Do you have an example of any human civilization which existed without any signs of spirituality whatsoever? All that we can go on is what we can observe and confirm. I'm open minded, I can accept the evidence if you can present some, but you haven't. You're simply making statements you cannot support.

 

[Hollie]

Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.

You will need to present evidence of this to make the claim. Do you have an example of any human civilization which existed without any signs of spirituality whatsoever? All that we can go on is what we can observe and confirm. I'm open minded, I can accept the evidence if you can present some, but you haven't. You're simply making statements you cannot support.

Boss, think about what you're asking. You want me to prove a negative.

So, yes. I have examples of civilizations that existed without your gawds or spirit realms. Can you prove I don't?

Additionally, cultures or civilizations having icons or symbols that represented events in nature is not necessarily spiritualism and it certainly does nothing to further your claims to retroactively assigning your gawds to those cultures.

 

[emilynghiem]

I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.

Then you are clearly not adequately comprehending or interpreting what I post. Emily, go back and re-read where MD made his original presentation of the 5 Things, (later amended to 7 Things) and his argument for TAG. You will find that I never disagreed with his argument or rejected it's possibility, in fact, I praised the argument and commended him for presenting a valid syllogistic argument, per the thread challenge. My only point of contention with any of this has been that human knowledge is not infallible and we are not omniscient. Therefore, the possibility always exists that we are wrong, that our "logic and logical thinking" are incorrect, and that we can never KNOW truth, we can only believe we know truth. MD viewed my observation as a personal threat to his ideas and began a campaign of attacks on me, both personally and intellectually.

Now you are free to have your opinion, but I don't see anything equal about the posting styles or tactics of myself and MD. I've not disrespected anyone's intelligence here, unless you can say that my not granting human intelligence as beyond reproach would qualify. I simply can't allow that MD is somehow immortally omniscient for the sake of "getting along" here. If you wish to concede that in order to achieve some greater objective, that's your prerogative.

The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!

1. The Divine Law of Identity

God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A. Hence, God = Boss.

Check!​

2. The Divine Law of Contradiction

God holds that for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A). Hence, the propositions that 2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss, and 2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion are all true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

Check!​

3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle

God holds that for all A: A AND ~A. Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time: Boss is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is not crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.

(Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially. Boss clearly is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only. Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on. But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.)

Check!​

Dear M.D. and Boss:
Since it is CLEAR to YOU, ME, and EVERYONE within earshot/eyeshot
that NEITHER of you agrees with the other's position on this,

May I PLEASE suggest that the two of you focus on some aspect of God
that YOU DO AGREE with and focus on how to BRING THAT into greater awareness

SURELY since you and also Breezewood believe in a HIGHER ALMIGHTY
you can find what it is you EACH
1. AGREE is good to share and form agreement on with more people
2. AGREE is BAD and should be corrected that is otherwise preventing AGREEMENT

What is GOOD about GOD that we need to share?
And help more people appreciate, understand and REALIZE?

Dang it, if everyone was OKAY with this about God, then we wouldn't have to be hush hush
about God, we could talk openly, and not worry about the Pledge or Money referencing God.

We don't have to agree on all things, but just agree enough to make it POSITIVE
not a SHAMEFUL topic that brings "offense" so that no one is allowed to talk about it.

Can't the two of you find ONE common focus on what God means or does good in the world
that YOU can agree on between YOU, so YOU can share that agreement with others, not this fighting.

And
2. What is so BAD that it is causing BreezeWood and Boss to
reject other presentations of God.

How do we straighten THAT out?

Can we PLEASE use our words to pinpoint
what we AGREE on and what we AGREE IS CONFLICTING.

And not turn our words AGAINST each other.

M.D. for a person of faith, you don't seem to have faith in
your fellow man, in the reasons God created Boss and
BreezeWood to see and think differently to snap us out of some
of our own set ways, and maybe see the bigger picture that requires
ALL of us to add our insights to the mix.

This will challenge your faith to trust that God does
have a purpose for BreezeWood and Boss.

Can we PLEASE find out what that is?

If they have a different approach, let's hear it.

3. One wild guess as to what could be a good focus:
discussing the meaning of the Trinity, and why some
people see God as One and cannot understand this
God/Jesus thing, and why some people understand BOTH.

I even know a husband and wife, where the wife thinks like
a Unitarian and has tried and tried, both her husband and I used every analogy and explanation
in the book that normally explains the Trinity to fellow Christians, but she still sees God as one
and doesn't get the Trinity. So I accepted that that's how her brain processes it. And her husband
is the other way, where he can know God is one universal for all, but also get the representation in the Trinity.

So we can discuss the relationships in the Trinity,
and get BreezeWood's and Boss's take on this,
and work on that if that's a better focus to get somewhere!

I know Justin is busy but you said he is a Trinitarian.
I am probably a Trinitarian Universalist, so I've seen tons of variations
on the Trinity theme and a million ways to explain it where it isn't the
same for all people and I've accepted that. Some people explain it in a way
that makes no sense at all to me, but we both believe in the same thing underneath.

M.D. Rawlings Boss and BreezeWood
can we focus on the Trinity and your thoughts and experiences
discussing that. And see if we can make any progress?

Thanks and I look forward to reaching a consensus
with you and others worldwide.
Once we get our act together here and can teach
others to do the same.

Whatever we overcome and resolve here,
it makes it that much easier to help the next person or groups do the same.

So it is not in vain, the struggle and effort it takes
is an investment in humanity, and where we are heading.

So where we succeed, so does the rest of the world,
instead of letting failures get the worst of us.

BreezeWood, Boss and M.D.:
Can we please agree to bring out the BEST
that each person has to offer, which we AGREE with,
and drop the worst that we don't agree with.

The good will overcome the bad.
The right points will help correct the wrong points.

Can we please join together and try again
even if we have to expand the focus a bit
to get to the points that really bother or matter to us?

Thank you!
Please try on the points that matter!
Please give up on the points that don't which we can fix later.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.

You will need to present evidence of this to make the claim. Do you have an example of any human civilization which existed without any signs of spirituality whatsoever? All that we can go on is what we can observe and confirm. I'm open minded, I can accept the evidence if you can present some, but you haven't. You're simply making statements you cannot support.

Boss, think about what you're asking. You want me to prove a negative.

So, yes. I have examples of civilizations that existed without your gawds or spirit realms. Can you prove I don't?

Additionally, cultures or civilizations having icons or symbols that represented events in nature is not necessarily spiritualism and it certainly does nothing to further your claims to retroactively assigning your gawds to those cultures.

Dear Hollie:
If you define God = Nature
can you find any human being or culture that wasn't affected by Nature?

Agnes Sanford equated God with Nature in her book "The Healing Light"
and she is considered one of the historic figures in Spiritual Healing,
called one of the most authentic and true to Christian faith while being
the LEAST concerned about religion, denomination or faith of others.
Most Christians who take this route are labeled as New Age and rejected,
but Sanford and her teachings on healing are respected as authentic.
And she never made a religious issue out of it.

She focused on healing and health as a natural gift from God/Nature/Life
and didn't worry about religion.

The barrier is in our minds.
We the people have separated church from state,
and religion from science, but these are basically different
languages for the same laws of NATURE.

The barrier is on both sides, the religious reject the secular
and the secular reject the religious.

Hollie I wish you could understand my position for two seconds
(I wouldn't ask you to feel any more than that or it is cruel, but just
enough to get it is enough);
Imagine I am someone who speaks both English and Spanish.
And I work well with people who speak English and work well with
people who speak Spanish. I want everyone to get along well enough
that we can work together and fix the world's problems, and not fight
over language and culture.

But the people who only understand one language, and fear the
other group is forcing their language on everyone else as the
legally required or socially dominant norm are FIGHTING to
make sure their language isn't marginalized or demonized.
And both groups are fighting, even insulting and threatening the other,
so they fight back and go in circles, destroying relations and hope for understanding with resentment.

Now imagine the children and people who are bilingual, who have friends
on both sides, and have to watch as people they love tear each other to shreds over their language
and the cultural ties to that language.

Wouldn't you understand it is better to have both,
to allow people to keep their own language and not
insult or expect them to convert to something else?

Why can't both sides stop trying to attack or change the other
and then defend themselves against equal attacks or forced imposition?

How can we be OKAY with both?

Why should we ASK those who speak Spanish or speak English
to prove the other language is right or wrong, inferior or superior.

WTF?

Hollie can we be as objective about religious views
as we are about language and quit POLITICIZING them.

Why can they be treated as NEUTRAL languages
and separate the politics that has crept in.

I am one of those people who is "Spiritually Bilingual"
I am equally if not more comfortable with SECULAR ways of
expressing the world and relations in life, as I am with
translating these into religious terminology that symbolizes the same things.

Hollie you are like asking to prove the existence of 2 and 4.
When 2 is just a symbol of * * and 4 is just a symbol of * * * *.

The concepts exist, like God = equals "NATURE"
but the disconnect is coming from politics.

People fighting over control and getting attacked or defensive.
That's where the problem is coming from.

If you scare little kids to death with Math, they don't want to hear about
2+2=4 or 0*0=0, they are scared of failing at Math.

So Hollie you remind me of students with Math anxiety
who have been taught Math is something scary to be pushed
on people to make them fail, to punish and kick kids out of school
and embarrass them in front of everyone else who can do well at Math.

And I am trying to help overcome these fears
so we can discuss how * * + * * = * * * *
and the symbols used for that are 2 + 2 = 4

I am sorry for whatever has angered or traumatized you in the past
about God, religion, Christianity and the Bible.

When I found out what these really mean,
Hollie I was FURIOUS, I flew into a panic,
cried and raged for weeks in a brainstorm of
OH MY GOD what have we done? Religions and politics
has created war when all these things were supposed to bring peace.
I cried and went to pieces, where my thoughts flew in all directions,
to heaven and hell at the same time, trying to figure it out how to
fix the messes that religions have made teaching it separated
when it was all supposed to point to the same message, not making one right and others wrong.

All religions were symbolizing parts of the truth,
and the point of Christianity was to unite them by conscience,
by agreement in Christ, and this WASN'T BEING TAUGHT.

Only division was being taught, rejection and calling other people wrong.

I thought I had died, and was going through hell to get to heaven.

So Hollie, whatever anger and rejection you feel, I am probably
10 to 100 times worse than you, so I couldn't take it, and had to find a solution.

You are actually more gracious than I was about it.
If you had been as incensed and made sick as I was,
you would not be able to tolerate the conflicts and would not stop until this was changed.

I hope you do have that faith that things can change,
but no, I would not wish on you what I went through
to see the need to push for agreement.

What I wish for you is to be able to see that end
without having to suffer in the anger and angst I did,
and my whole family went through to get to that understanding.

I hope you may receive it, and that peace from knowing
there is a better way to teach Christianity where it does
not exclude secular gentiles but is perfectly in keeping
with science, medicine and social psychology that teaches
us the same things about forgiveness, healing and spiritual peace.

I hope you can have that, and don't have to worry about
Christians who don't teach it fully so it causes division and confusion.

My apologies for that, and it blew my mind and broke my heart
also when I realized what was missing, and found all the
Christians who were struggling to teach this correctly,
and they have also been rejected and silenced by fellow Christians.

it's really sad, and I hope you can see past it.

Thanks, Hollie
Yours truly,
Emily

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus


1. Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

2. What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?

3. What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

4. What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

5. What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

6. What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

7. What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

8. What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?

9. What is the chirality of biological sugars?

10. What is the chirality of biological phosphates?

11. What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?

12. What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

13. Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?

14. What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

15. In a nutshell, without looking it up, given the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

16. Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?

17. What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

18. What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

19. What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?

20. What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?

21. At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

22. In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

23. In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

24. Why are you so full of shiticus Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus?

 

[BreezeWood]

Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....

I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?

Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"

It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.

Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.

... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,

seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.

do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -

why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.

a fatal decision for those who chose it.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Question #25:

BreezeWood: "[W]hy without the constraints of a self serving written document [as opposed to the self-serving, made-up oral tradition of Dropus Cranium Infans BreezeWoodicus] would you cho[o]se that same path of vial [vile?] righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty"? ​

 

[Boss]

Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.

You will need to present evidence of this to make the claim. Do you have an example of any human civilization which existed without any signs of spirituality whatsoever? All that we can go on is what we can observe and confirm. I'm open minded, I can accept the evidence if you can present some, but you haven't. You're simply making statements you cannot support.

Boss, think about what you're asking. You want me to prove a negative.

So, yes. I have examples of civilizations that existed without your gawds or spirit realms. Can you prove I don't?

Additionally, cultures or civilizations having icons or symbols that represented events in nature is not necessarily spiritualism and it certainly does nothing to further your claims to retroactively assigning your gawds to those cultures.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You made a statement: Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.

What seems very clear to me is, you can't back this statement up. If it is that clear to you, then you should have some example of a civilization that didn't practice any form of spiritual belief. I have not retroactively assigned my gods or anyone elses gods to anyone here, I simply asked you to back up your statement and you can't do that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Its reduced to "I'm the authority!!!! Grrrrr!!! Punk!"


Too comedy.....too comedy

Do have nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving, too? I bow reduce to your authority.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.

Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to gawds.

Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.