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

[emilynghiem]

Dear Inevitable
After your reading your messages I got an insight that we really do need to redirect traffic.
Mack Trucks do not belong in the pedestrian or bike lane and vice versa.

I see that MD needs to butt heads with the Pharisees on that level
or he is like a football player on the field with no battle or teams to fight.

So he belongs in a different game, with people who need to butt heads.
Who need a good lashing. He is using the wrong people as target practice.

I know some others who want to address the Jehovah's Witnesses
and Catholic elders about church policies, and who is teaching God/Jesus right or wrong etc.
These people already assume that God is a given, and have other issues to hash out from there.

Let them address each other, as they WANT to have these debates and discussions on that level.
I was hoping MD could learn and take advantage of having Boss and BreezeWood here to
prepare him, but maybe those two need to be part of the team to block and bash people, too.
Any mediator who can reconcile between those three, can teach others how to do it.
Boss was reaching out to BreezeWood and at one point seemed to have smoothed over
a hump with MD, but lost it again, so I'm not sure what it would take to get them on the same page.

Let them have at it.
That is one approach one level,
but there are others that need to be pursued with the same rigor
and commitment to establishing agreement.

We'll get it together. Once the teams organize
people can choose who they want to work with
and who they need to avoid.

I do not understand the people who keep running from the focus that would solve their conflicts,
and keep bringing up and baiting the very issues or people they can't fix just to bash them.

That part I don't understand, and hope people focus on solutions not problems.

You called it childishness, and it reminds me of buying toys for kids so they
can play safely, but they insist on either playing with the noisy pots and pans that get annoying,
or want to take the forks and poke them into the electric sockets or toaster instead to see what would happen.

Oh well. If that is their learning curve, if they want to pull hair and kick shins,
that is just a phase they have to go through.

Thanks for being more mature than that,
and I hope we all grow up to be more like you.

I can be a little kid, too, but at least I go cry in a corner
and don't hit back. I can be 10 times annoying about pushing people,
so thank you for seeing the better side of that, and forgiving the disadvantages I have.

For where I am going, believe me, I will need to ally with a bigger bully
like MD when it comes to the real putting people in their places.
some people NEED someone like MD in their faces
and I can't do what he does. We just need to find that
niche for him, and he will shine and do his job that nobody else can do.

But here, it is wasted on bullying people inappropriately
so you are right that this is not the way to approach it.

Thanks and we'll try something else.
By trial and error, hit and miss, the pieces will fall into place.

Everyone here has some vital part, and we just have to
stay within our proper element and we'll all do much better than this.

Yours truly, with much respect for your support
transparency and honesty,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear O man:
I agree MD uses these as a screening device to separate the people for or against his TAG approach.

I posted a question: if Jesus or Buddha could answer any of these 25 questions, and if not, how are they
any basis for judging people. I don't think I got an answer, but I thought it was clear they would not have passed.

Hollie also posted her list of unanswerable questions.

I think that is also for the purpose of coming to terms that we are starting at different points.
And organizing from there.

It is said that explanations aren't necessary: for friends they won't need them but will already understand,
for enemies they won't believe them anyway. so these are like screening devices for identifying what
tribe we align with and sticking to our tribe.

Justin aligns with MD. I think GT amrchaos and Inevitable understand where I am coming from, so we can align if we work at it,
but BreezeWood is someplace else and is not quite convinced we can work at it if we are including the Christian God in the mix.

O man I assume you and Hollie might align, so I am happy if there is more backing for that approach.

if we just find our teams and agree what we do or do not agree to focus on,
we can map out a strategy and avoid the pitfalls of putting the wrong peg or puzzle piece in the wrong place.

Thank you and I hope you stick around
We need at least one strong defense/offense man on each side
so nobody gets bulldozed over. If Hollie had more backing, maybe she wouldn't be put on the defensive all the time.

We need mediators willing to act as go betweens, but those are the personality
types who get run over and aren't one to bully back, so we need to help each other avoid that.

I think this is more like a friendly scrimmage
as practice for the real game we need to battle out as a team, not as adversaries.

I hope MD can see what I mean by this, if he wants to be in charge.
If he keeps stomping and blocking his own players, you can't coach a team that way.

I'm supposed to be cheerleader for moral support for the team.
I'm not supposed to be out on the field getting run over....

 

[orogenicman]

What's the point? If the point is to make us feel better about ourselves that our way is the right way, well, I don't think it is a valid or viable approach to searching for truth. We not only cannot seem to agree as to what the facts are, we can't even agree to what a fact IS. I'm a geologist who is also a lifelong amateur astronomer. I look for facts, verfiable, repeatable, fasifiable facts in my search for the truth. Now, we can speculate, and philosophize til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, we are inevidably brought back to one question - what do the facts tell us? He can play his games all he wants but it isn't solving anything, and is nothing more than an intentional, childish disruption of the forum. You can defend him if you feel you must, but if that is what you truly feel you must do, I don't have much respect for your position.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If I want to look like a fool?! Shut up, you idiot. Your ass is already hanging out like that of a fool's over abiogenesis, and we classical liberals know that only sheep buy the 97% myth and the statist baloney of alarmist global warming. Contempt is the operative word here. It is contempt with which gullible fools like yourself are regarded by the elitists who sell it, and it is contempt with which those of us who know what the scoundrels are all about regard you.

Liberal? You? Bhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

I would say that you've gone insane, but that would be an insult to insane people everywhere. No sir, I will not shut up. That you actually believe you have won some kind of debate here is pathetic, to say the least. Grow up already.

I've found that people such as M. Pompous Rawling who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.

He had an argument? News to me. All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults. Oh, that argument. If that is all he can win, he can have it. Where do these people come from?

orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya! I got blisters on my fingers.

No there isn't because there aren't millions of different kinds of biological precursors. And the only blisters I see are the ones rotting your brain. I can,t do anything for you, but you do have my sympathy.

So why did you say there were millions of different kinds earlier?

Oh, that's right! I remember now. You were lying like a snake in the grass, implying that I was saying something I couldn't have possibly meant, pretending to understand something you don't, and like all liars only made yourself look like an ass.

Given that there are only four major groups of organic compounds in biology, and that nature is known to produce only five of the foundationally discrete monomers/precursors of life's compounds via the self-ordering properties of chemistry: only a dope or a liar would have failed to understand that "a relatively paltry number of biological molecules" found in space debris refers to the number of KINDS, not the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, combined with the countless number of organic compounds, given the fact of the countless number of space debris carrying such molecules in this vast universe!

Oh, and by the way, since you were really talking about the sheer number: you can't even get that right. Millions in terms of the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, did you say? Given that a single meteorite might contain that many alone, try trillions upon trillions upon trillions! Only God knows the count on that score, you ignoramus.

Oh, and that reminds me to add another question to the 24.

Note that #18 is a new question below.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The 25 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 four major groups of organic compounds in biological systems?

19. What are the five basic monomers/precursors for the four major organic compounds of life that nature is known to produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

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

21. 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?

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

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

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

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

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? It's made up.

LOL! Just how scientifically illiterate are you? And with nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving under your belt no less.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts

You're certainly free to believe whatever you please, whatever silly myth of an opinion/belief that tickles your fancy.

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

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

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

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

You think you're going to dictate around here?

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

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

Okay?

 

[Hollie]

So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? It's made up.

LOL! Just how scientifically illiterate are you? And with nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving under your belt no less.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts

You're certainly free to believe whatever you please, whatever silly myth of an opinion/belief that tickles your fancy.

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

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

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

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

You think you're going to dictate around here?

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

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

Okay?

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A pointless attempt at argument of unparalleled waste of time.

Okay?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What's the point? If the point is to make us feel better about ourselves that our way is the right way, well, I don't think it is a valid or viable approach to searching for truth. We not only cannot seem to agree as to what the facts are, we can't even agree to what a fact IS. I'm a geologist who is also a lifelong amateur astronomer. I look for facts, verfiable, repeatable, fasifiable facts in my search for the truth. Now, we can speculate, and philosophize til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, we are inevidably brought back to one question - what do the facts tell us? He can play his games all he wants but it isn't solving anything, and is nothing more than an intentional, childish disruption of the forum. You can defend him if you feel you must, but if that is what you truly feel you must do, I don't have much respect for your position.

What utter crapolatus. You've been given the facts. Your shiticus is all made up. You demonstrate no understanding and play nothing but games.

The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!

1. Do we exist? Yes we do!

2. Does the cosmological order exist? Yes it does, Mr. Geologist (snicker), amateur astronomer!

3. Is the God axiom a scientific fact of human cognition/psychology? Yes it is!

4. Logically, wouldn't the substance of the God axiom, the ultimate origin of all other things that exist apart from itself, necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness? Yes, of course! How could any creature be greater than the Creator?

5. Is the existence of God subject to scientific verification or falsification at this time? No, of course not!

6. Is it logically possible for one to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist, on the very face of it, without inherently contradicting oneself, negating this assertion and, thus, positively proving that the opposite must be true according to the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic? No, it's not!

7. Hence, all of the above are necessarily true statements logically!


That's what a sound/valid logical proof is!

According to the scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, God must be!


1. Do you have an argument that can overthrow the veracity of the three bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle)? Of course, not, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes them to be true!

2. Do you have a sound/valid syllogistic argument that could possibly overthrow the logical conclusion of the organic laws of human thought? No, you don't!

3. Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that would overthrow the scientific fact of the God axiom in human cognition/psychology, the veracity of the God axiom or the apparent substance thereof according to the laws of organic thought; i.e., does there exist any peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that would overthrow/falsify any one of these things? No, there doesn't!

4. Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? No, there doesn't!

5. Can you explain how something arose from nothing? No, you can't!


You got nothin', and nothin' from nothin' = nothing.

The Seven Things™ stand!

They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hollie also posted her list of unanswerable questions.

Hollie's unanswerable questions?!

I'm sorry. You must have missed the utter annihilation of the pressumptous materialist's nonsense: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 520 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[G.T.]

There are no logical proofs for god.

TAG is a circular argument. Chases its tail

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? It's made up.

LOL! Just how scientifically illiterate are you? And with nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving under your belt no less.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts

You're certainly free to believe whatever you please, whatever silly myth of an opinion/belief that tickles your fancy.

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

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

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

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

You think you're going to dictate around here?

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

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

Okay?

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A pointless attempt at argument of unparalleled waste of time.

Okay?

In other words, once again, you have no counterargument that could even begin to overthrow the rational and empirical facts of The Seven Things.

Check.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There are no logical proofs for god.

TAG is a circular argument. Chases its tail

The species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus/GTicus de Basketus Weavicus

I don't care who you are. That's hilarious.

 

[G.T.]

Actually...its only funny to you. And maybe your sock.

But uh, break that vicious circle yet?

Didn't think so.

 

[Hollie]

So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? It's made up.

LOL! Just how scientifically illiterate are you? And with nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving under your belt no less.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts

You're certainly free to believe whatever you please, whatever silly myth of an opinion/belief that tickles your fancy.

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

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

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

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

You think you're going to dictate around here?

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

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

Okay?

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A pointless attempt at argument of unparalleled waste of time.

Okay?

In other words, once again, you have no counterargument that could even begin to overthrow the rational and empirical facts of The Seven Things.

Check.

In other words, you're not paying attention.

As you know, I spent more time than I needed to in a thorough refutation of your pointless, inane and irrational and subjective seven fraudulent things.


Check!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

They are your questions, Mad Dog (aka, MD). I have yet to see you answer a single one of them despite the number of times you have posted them. Why? Because you aren't looking for them to be answered. You post them because you think it makes you look smart. What it actually does is make you look desperate and stupid. Even worse, they are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that god exists, and as such are off topic. But then, you knew that already. "God did it" is not evidence of anything. It is an unprovable tautology.

There you go projecting your petty psychology again. No, boy, you came on this thread making baby talk, implying that the scientific facts of human cognition/psychology are not true when they obviously are. Have you ever once articulated a coherent counterargument, provided a citation to support your allegation or directly addressed anything of substance at all? Nope! You came a'mockin' which is all you atheists ever do. Then you imply to know things about abiogenesis that overthrow the actual facts of science and the contents of my article. No, sir! Those questions were posted to demonstrate your obvious ignorance and pretensions.

Let me lace you up on something. I'm on another thread right now in which theists are pummeling the usual atheistic suspects on this forum who go around from religious thread to religious thread with only one motive in mind: disrupt rational and civil discourse on matters they know nothing or care nothing about. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of atheists on this forum or virtually any other forum like this one on the Internet are not rational thinkers at all and know next to nothing worth knowing about the relevant science. Their idea of argumentation is name-calling, mockery and derision. You don't talk to us. You talk at us. You don't even have the common courtesy to treat others as real persons. You guys don't ever directly address anything of real substance.

I've been in PMs with more than a dozen theists on this forum, and we are not going to allow you punks to pull your crap anymore, and that includes the theistic phonies of relativism like that snot-nosed punk Inevitable. You are laughing stocks who treat the heartfelt convictions of rational and sincere theists, persons who have engaged you in good faith, only to act like friggin' animals. Most of you are pathological liars, and I suspect that many of you are flat-out sociopaths. Hence, you will be treated accordingly, albeit, with real arguments, something you guys don't understand at all.

 

[G.T.]

Wow....get a life seriously

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.

I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks. I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.

I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.

You're the feral animal, who talked at a person who was talking to you. You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object. You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants. You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.

I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks. I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)

If people AGREE to call each other names,
like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.

But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
I believe we need to respect that.

Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
if we are going to communicate like civil adults.

GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
and then it won't keep coming out as name calls insults or weird accusations.

I can explain the root of this. Particularly the bizarre behaviour demonstrated by Justin and md. They don't have any proof if their claims, if they did they would have posted it. But they are frustrated because of that. So they lash out at posters that point that out.

I personally don't take offense to it, really it's kind of funny. Because they are saying indirectly that they have no argument.

LOL! You couldn't explain your way out a wet paper handkerchief.


Inevitable the Drama Queen

Inevitable: Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. Giggle It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. Giggle I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? Giggle I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, God, you know, God. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God and stuff just because. Giggle

I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. Giggle I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. Giggle

And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. Giggle

Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. Giggle I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? Giggle I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. Giggle Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. Giggle

Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? Giggle

I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. Giggle And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. Giggle And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is People. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. Giggle I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. Giggle I'm so cute and funny that way.


Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .

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

The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow....get a life seriously

So you don't like peanut butter? Who doesn't peanut butter? Fine! We got tuna fish sandwiches on rye. Happy? You want something to wash them down with?

 

[G.T.]