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

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ have been so thoroughly discredited, what would you choose to continuing promoting that fraud?

No that would be the five simple things you guys agreed with. The sixth thing was added, which you dummies are pretending not to understand and the seventh thing is merely a summary of the six.


So actually it goes, "yeah, we agree with the five, oh, but, wait, we don't like the sixth thing . . . though of course we know it's true . . . and that puts us down for all seven."

See how that works when we tell the truth?


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]

orogenicman, you asked your question and it was answered. Now answer these questions. . . .


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?

 

[Hollie]

The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ have been so thoroughly discredited, what would you choose to continuing promoting that fraud?

No that would be the five simple things you guys agreed with. The sixth thing was added, which you dummies are pretending not to understand and the seventh thing is merely a summary of the six.


So actually it goes, "yeah, we agree with the five, oh, but, wait, we don't like the sixth thing . . . though of course we know it's true . . . and that puts us down for all seven."

See how that works when we tell the truth?


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/.

Even someone with your limitations has to admit to the comedy gold of your Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™.

After you suffered such a humiliating drubbing with the false and pointless Five Fraudulent Things™, you were forced to immediately trash that and replace it with the bigger disaster of the Seven Fraudulent Things™.


The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ drenched with pointless Rawling'isms that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism 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), proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.

 

[Hollie]

10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist

10 questions for the hyper- religious.


1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?

2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?

3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?

4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?

5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books. Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible. If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?

6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?

7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible? Then how do you know what it really said?

8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?

9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong. Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?

10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist

 

[Justin Davis]

His reply was utterly stupid. It had nothing to do with my post. Like I said mock these idiots. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who is lacking the qualifying adjective.

The sarcasm just goes over your head, Ken doll.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis


I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under the controlled simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or as calcified, meteoric deposits, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in calcified, meteoric deposits,
or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are not the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I was thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented in the article.

Check?

 

[Hollie]

Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis


I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under controlled, simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or meteoric-calcified states, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in meteoric-calcified forms or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are not the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I'm thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented.

Check?

Fundie Zealot and The Magical Mystery Tour of Religious Extremism.

Intelligence. That's what you're sorely lacking in favor of your pointless appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Fundie Zealot and The Magical Mystery Tour of Religious Extremism.

Intelligence. That's what you're sorely lacking in favor of your pointless appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis

I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under the controlled simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or as calcified, meteoric deposits, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in calcified, meteoric deposits,
or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are not the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I was thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented in the article.

Check?

 

[emilynghiem]

if you are praying, you are not living.

.

RE: "if you are praying, you are not living."
^ ??? ^

Dear BreezeWood:
This is like saying if you are talking you are not thinking.
maybe that's true for some people,
but others can talk and think at the same time.

I have a friend whose calling in life IS to pray for healing for others,
so that IS her gift in life, l like how some people play music as their gift.

Now BreezeWood you could say that if a golf player is busy practicing or playing on the field,
or a Cellist is in rehearsal or in the middle of a performance on stage,
sure, those people are not out with their family and friends "living their lives."

But their calling as musicians IS part of their life.
For some it is their HIGHER calling and the love of their life.

How can you say that isn't living. That way of sharing isn't part of their PURPOSE in life?

How can you assume, without ever meeting my friend,
or other spiritual healing prayer teachers and practitioners who help people
with HEALING that saves their minds, their lives, their relations health and sanity
through PRAYER for forgiveness and healing and counseling them through their process
of spiritual recovery and/or growth.

How can you assume that none of that is living?
They are SAVING lives, do you have any concept of that gift?

If not, why are you stating so as if it is FACT?
If you are Buddhist, where is this assumption of absolute knowledge of truth coming from?

Seems you are making wild leaps in logic and assumptions,
very attached to your opinion so much that you exclude and override
the lives and spiritual callings of other people who SHARE THE GIFT OF LIFE through prayer.

I question if you even know what you are talking about?
Where did you get that prayer was not a part of life
and completely disregard the use of prayer that has SAVED lives.

Why did you leave this out unless you were ignorant and making assumptions
of things you have no knowledge of?

??? X ???
This does not sound like the BreezeWood I know to be questioning the absolutes
as missing the bigger picture, for you to do the same thing is very strange, are you sure?

Am I misunderstanding what you mean?

I would guess because the fallacy of the bible prevents me from "reading" that book but that there is no instance where Jesus is in a state of prayer -

the Triumph of Good over Evil can not be prayed into existence.

you are chasing you tail Emily, not life.

.

????

My goodness, BreezeWood!

Jesus prayed to prepare himself, to reconcile his will with God's will.

What are you TALKING about that Jesus never prayed?
Do you mean scientific proof? No, nobody was there to measure his brain to prove it was in such a state.

But c'mon BreezeWood
the whole argument that Jesus is not God
is that he was praying to God and could not be praying to himself.

BreezeWood: if you mean a scientific proof,
then Larry Dossey and Dale Matthews and others have researched prayer to show
it involves the same process in the brain.

Atheists, :Buddhists in meditation, Christians praying,
the brain goes into the same higher state.

This research has UPSET fundamental Christians
but Dossey and Matthews are both Christians
and they find it teaches that the spirit is UNIVERSAL.

The Book "Prayer is Good Medicine" describes some of the
research and findings.

BreezeWood you must mean something else: Do you mean the
"Repetitive" chants and prayers that are rituals that distract the brain?

What do you mean by prayer?

I have friends who have cast out demons and healed people of
SATANIC curses by prayer.

One of my friends regained control of his mind from demonic rages
after my friend Olivia walked him through deep forgiveness prayer
to heal of terrible wounds, pains, attachments and rages from past abuse.

Are you saying that process of prayer ISN'T REAL OR MEANINGFUL
When the ONLY reason my friend is still alive is he quit all that self-destruction
after receiving the healing prayer?

We can't be talking about the same thing, BreezeWood, or this makes no sense.

You are the first person telling me that prayer isn't real,
so you must mean something else, like the false ritualistic chanting or false faith commands or something unreal.

I don't understand how you can be dismissing something
you haven't even studied. That does not sound like you?

 

[emilynghiem]

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
—Proverbs 6:16–19

You shall not spread a false report.
— Exodus 23:1-2

Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.

the pot calling the kettle black
he who accuses, self accuses.

I find the people who are the least at fault,
also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.

The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.

All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.

The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.

Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.

He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.

I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.

He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.

M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.

 

[emilynghiem]

MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.

We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.

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.

No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
as is anyone else.

I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
ie. less than human, so what do you call that?

The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.

Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."

How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.

Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.

Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
Let's try to make this come out right.

I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.

Thanks.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-

He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.

Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.

Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.

I think the world of you.

I think you are right, that M.D. is not in the right element or context here and his ways/purpose are going to waste.

I think he needs to fight it out in the Bullring with Bullheaded people who need to be slapped around with
their own theology. he said he understands the mentality of fundamentalists, so maybe that's his audience.

He's sparring with the wrong people here.
And has to create problems where they are none.

I can try to redirect him to people who need this approach to get on the same page.
If no one here relates to that, we need to focus on something with meaning and substance to us.

Let him go fight his battles on the battlefield, instead of creating one here.
Thanks, Inevitable
I see you are right, and there is a better solution that makes the most of M.D. talents instead of wasting them on us!

 

[Muslim75]

I am speaking from the Islamic perspective.
The proof that God exists is His act. Like footprints indicate a walker, His act indicates His existence. The rain that comes from the sky, the constellations of the Zodiac and the vast pathways above you in the sky point to the existence of a unique Almighty God.

 

[emilynghiem]

the Triumph of Good over Evil can not be prayed into existence.
.

^ P.S. BreezeWood
the prayer to receive "forgiveness and healing"
opens the door for Good will to enter and overcome ill will ^

I think it would benefit your knowledge to read the sections in the
book "Healing" by Francis MacNutt that explain the difference
between regular prayer/meditation and the special type of
prayer for deliverance and exorcism.

This process has saved lives, BreezeWood

My friend Olivia can attest to many lives saved by healing prayer
her number 713-829-0899 is posted on freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
You can also contact two other witnesses and practitioners
who have helped saved many people's lives, sanity, relations and health through
healing prayer for forgiveness in order to restore the natural healing process:
Christian Healing Ministries - Christian Healing Ministries
Healing Is Yours

BreezeWood if you don't believe spiritual healing is real and prayer for forgiveness
opens the door to releasing and restoring that natural process, you are missing out.

I offered to set up a 10 million dollar bet this can be demonstrated/proven by science.

if you REALLY don't believe there is any truth to this, you can cough up the 10 million.
I was going to divide it in teams, to each take sides and then conduct the studies.

But BreezeWood if you are SO ABSOLUTELY SURE there is nothing real about prayer,
heck, I can make the bet directly with you. I've never met another person who ever
said this, not a Buddhist or Christian. There are atheists who mock prayer but
most will accept it at least has a placebo effect and believe the scientific studies
that show a correlation with better health. For you to reject the SCIENCE astounds me.

BreezeWood are you SURE? Are you willing to bet 10 million on it that the science
will not prove there is a natural process going on with praying for forgiveness and spiritual healing
that affects mind, body and even relations with others in a positive way? Really? I am shocked.

But hey, if you are SO SURE, let me know if you are willing to go public and take the other side
of the 10 million dollar bet. I wanted to raise 10 million for a historic Vet housing project that
would involve spiritual healing as part of the therapy. How can you be so sure prayer has no real effect?

* My friend Olivia has over 35 years of healing practice through prayer, all voluntary and free
* Francis MacNutt wrote his book in 1974 and has an active teaching ministry with no complaints of fraud or abuse,
all free, all to help people with healing and teaching and training in teams to help others with healing prayer
* Phillip Goldfedder changed his neurosurgery practice to focus on healing prayer because he found it more effective

So all these people are fakes? How can you explain all the people whose lives, sanity, minds health, family
and relations were SAVED by healing through prayer for forgiveness?

Astounding, BreezeWood. I can believe all these healing stories, because of friends who were saved from suffering by it,
but I cannot believe your attitude can be so closeminded and absolute when this runs against the very values you preach!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.

We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.

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.

No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
as is anyone else.

I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
ie. less than human, so what do you call that?

The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.

Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."

How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.

Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.

Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
Let's try to make this come out right.

I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.

Thanks.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-

He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.

Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.

Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.

I think the world of you.

I think you are right, that M.D. is not in the right element or context here and his ways/purpose are going to waste.

I think he needs to fight it out in the Bullring with Bullheaded people who need to be slapped around with
their own theology. he said he understands the mentality of fundamentalists, so maybe that's his audience.

He's sparring with the wrong people here.
And has to create problems where they are none.

I can try to redirect him to people who need this approach to get on the same page.
If no one here relates to that, we need to focus on something with meaning and substance to us.

Let him go fight his battles on the battlefield, instead of creating one here.
Thanks, Inevitable
I see you are right, and there is a better solution that makes the most of M.D. talents instead of wasting them on us!

LOL! Inevitable is a ninny.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
—Proverbs 6:16–19

You shall not spread a false report.
— Exodus 23:1-2

Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.

the pot calling the kettle black
he who accuses, self accuses.

I find the people who are the least at fault,
also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.

The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.

All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.

The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.

Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.

He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.

I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.

He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.

M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.

orogenicman is a total fraud. You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.


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


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

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


Rawlings:

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

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

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

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



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


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


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


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


Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: He won't answer the question!


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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



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


Emily: Can't we all just get along?


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


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


Rawlings: You got that right.


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


Rawlings:

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now here's something really weird from the other thread. An atheist directly raised the very problem I was hinting at with Boss' craziness!


The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man


The Omnipotence Paradox has been overthrown since time immemorial. Only the sophomoric think it to be of any significance at all. I just wanted you to emphatically state your position. . . .

The Omnipotence Paradox is utter nonsense, as it arbitrarily defines sans any justification that divine omnipotence must necessarily mean that God can do anything at all . . . except, of course, what he can't do. Hence, supposedly, since God can't do just anything at all, divine omnipotence is paradoxical.

Straw man!

The justified exception to this rule is self-evident and proves that a rock too big for God to move could never exist in the first place. The paradoxical absurdity is the conjecture regarding the existence of such a rock, not the existence of divine omnipotence proper.

In actuality, it's the antagonist's paradox . . . not necessarily the theist's problem at all. For example, it's neither a problem in the face of the absolute laws of thought objectively apparent to all nor a problem for the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Judeo-Christianity.

The belief to the contrary is a mere illusion, an unexamined notion that only persists in the minds of those who are gullibly biased and thoughtless.

It is, however, a problem for at least one member of this forum, for his construct of divinity is utterly overthrown by the Omnipotence Paradox.

That would be the construct of USMB member Boss, as he holds that the absolute laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle: comprehensively, the principle of identity) were created by God for mankind, not the eternally existent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind by God!

With his god you have a point, but you got nothing' on the God of the Bible.

The burden of proof is on the atheist antagonist especially, for he necessarily (unwittingly and contradictorily) presupposes not just one, not just two, but three things to be true:

1. He presupposes that the laws of thought are universally true in order to contradictorily argue that they are not universally true; that is, he argues something he cannot rationally demonstrate or explain, namely, that the principle of identity is false.

2. He presupposes God's existence as if he were one from on higher than high by insisting that divine omnipotence would necessarily mean that God can do anything . . . when that does not necessarily follow at all. In other words, he presupposes to known something about the nature of God that is not logically apparent to the rest of us.

(At this point, the atheist is sputtering that he does no such thing, but observe. . . .)

3. He contradictorily presupposes God's existence by claiming to know for a fact that God is not the Principle of Identity Himself, the very substance of and the universal ground for the laws of logic. In other words, like Boss, he pretends to know for a fact that the absolute laws of logic were created by God for mankind, not the preexistent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind, not the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of thought for all existence.

It's either that or the antagonist necessarily argues that the laws of thought were bestowed on mankind by . . . mutable nature.

Crickets chirping

The laws of thought necessarily hold that God must exist in order for the laws of thought to be absolute. In fact, the laws of thought hold that God must be the ultimate Source and Guarantor of the laws of thought, the Source and Guarantor of natural and moral law, and the Source and Guarantor of the physical laws of nature. God must be the reason for the apparent synchronization between the prescriptive, rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the descriptive properties and processes of nature.

Those who don't hold that to be true necessarily concede that whatever comes out of their mouths about anything is the esoteric mumbo jumbo of relativism. Fine. Nothing they say is authoritative, absolute or reliably true. According to them, there's no such thing as proofs for anything, let alone burdens of proof. LOL! Let them talk to rocks. Hump trees. Argue with flowers. Bark at the moon. I hold that the laws of thought are universally true and, thus, whatever I assert accordingly stands.

Hence, on the contrary, the burden of proof is on the relativist—whether he be a theist, an agonistic or an atheist—who stands on paradox and barks at the moon.​

But the antagonist does not assert the so-called Omnipotence Paradox as a problem for epistemological relativism, does he? He asserts it as if it were a refutation of divine omnipotence premised on a universally absolute axiom of logic.

Hocus Pocus.

What the antagonist is really doing, albeit, unwittingly, is presupposing something that he himself, once again, cannot rationally demonstrate or explain. He presupposes an apriority that he doesn't even put into evidence . . . because he's not even aware of the fact that his allegation of a paradox is actually premised on something else: the inherently contradictory paradox that the laws of thought are not universally true in the first place.

That's weird because the nature of the antagonist's contradiction is self-negating; hence, it positively proves the opposite must be true!

In other words, the construct of divine omnipotence proper, that which is rationally consistent and upholds the universality of the laws of thought, is not subject to a logical fallacy that begs the question: especially to one that is asserted as if it were exempt from the falsification of the absolute laws of thought . . . especially to one that necessarily negates itself and positively affirms that the laws of thought must be universally true.

So what does this all mean? Some are still scratching their heads.

All the antagonist is really saying is God ≠ God, because if God = God, then God ≠ God. Or more to the point, divine omnipotence = divinity can do anything . . . only for those who believe in absurdities or contradictorily argue that the principle of identity is false: a notion that is rationally indemonstrable/inexplicable.

Hence, divine omnipotence necessarily = God can do all things but that which would negate His existence or contradict His nature.

The actual nature of divine omnipotence is not subject to the utterly arbitrary, unqualified, unjustifiable and irrational absurdities of presumptuous little gods in the gap.

The law of identity: for any given A: A = A; any given existent is what it is and cannot be what it is not. God = God. By definition, God = Perfection. God is perfect rationality, not the imperfection of irrationality or absurdity.


Hence, according to the laws of logic, all of reality is paradoxical/absurd . . . unless the following are true:

1. God exists!

2. God is the Principle of Identity!

3. The universal, bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought of mankind are ultimately the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind, not created.​

The paradoxical/contradictory figments of human imagination that are not logically necessary or logically possible do not have primacy over existence; they do not have primacy over the mind of God, as if the minds of creatures could be greater than the mind of the Creator. The order of contingency is the converse. Human consciousness is contingent on the mind of God and the universally absolute laws of thought thereof.

The laws of thought stand. Truth must be universally absolute, not relative. Logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities are just that: logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities. For any given A: A = A. They are not truths. The utterly arbitrary assertion that divine omniscience means the ability to do anything is logically and metaphysically false.

The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.

 

[Hollie]

Now here's something really weird from the other thread. An atheist directly raised the very problem I was hinting at with Boss' craziness!


The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man


The Omnipotence Paradox has been overthrown since time immemorial. Only the sophomoric think it to be of any significance at all. I just wanted you to emphatically state your position. . . .

The Omnipotence Paradox is utter nonsense, as it arbitrarily defines sans any justification that divine omnipotence must necessarily mean that God can do anything at all . . . except, of course, what he can't do. Hence, supposedly, since God can't do just anything at all, divine omnipotence is paradoxical.

Straw man!

The justified exception to this rule is self-evident and proves that a rock too big for God to move could never exist in the first place. The paradoxical absurdity is the conjecture regarding the existence of such a rock, not the existence of divine omnipotence proper.

In actuality, it's the antagonist's paradox . . . not necessarily the theist's problem at all. For example, it's neither a problem in the face of the absolute laws of thought objectively apparent to all nor a problem for the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Judeo-Christianity.

The belief to the contrary is a mere illusion, an unexamined notion that only persists in the minds of those who are gullibly biased and thoughtless.

It is, however, a problem for at least one member of this forum, for his construct of divinity is utterly overthrown by the Omnipotence Paradox.

That would be the construct of USMB member Boss, as he holds that the absolute laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle: comprehensively, the principle of identity) were created by God for mankind, not the eternally existent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind by God!

With his god you have a point, but you got nothing' on the God of the Bible.

The burden of proof is on the atheist antagonist especially, for he necessarily (unwittingly and contradictorily) presupposes not just one, not just two, but three things to be true:

1. He presupposes that the laws of thought are universally true in order to contradictorily argue that they are not universally true; that is, he argues something he cannot rationally demonstrate or explain, namely, that the principle of identity is false.

2. He presupposes God's existence as if he were one from on higher than high by insisting that divine omnipotence would necessarily mean that God can do anything . . . when that does not necessarily follow at all. In other words, he presupposes to known something about the nature of God that is not logically apparent to the rest of us.

(At this point, the atheist is sputtering that he does no such thing, but observe. . . .)

3. He contradictorily presupposes God's existence by claiming to know for a fact that God is not the Principle of Identity Himself, the very substance of and the universal ground for the laws of logic. In other words, like Boss, he pretends to know for a fact that the absolute laws of logic were created by God for mankind, not the preexistent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind, not the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of thought for all existence.

It's either that or the antagonist necessarily argues that the laws of thought were bestowed on mankind by . . . mutable nature.

Crickets chirping

The laws of thought necessarily hold that God must exist in order for the laws of thought to be absolute. In fact, the laws of thought hold that God must be the ultimate Source and Guarantor of the laws of thought, the Source and Guarantor of natural and moral law, and the Source and Guarantor of the physical laws of nature. God must be the reason for the apparent synchronization between the prescriptive, rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the descriptive properties and processes of nature.

Those who don't hold that to be true necessarily concede that whatever comes out of their mouths about anything is the esoteric mumbo jumbo of relativism. Fine. Nothing they say is authoritative, absolute or reliably true. According to them, there's no such thing as proofs for anything, let alone burdens of proof. LOL! Let them talk to rocks. Hump trees. Argue with flowers. Bark at the moon. I hold that the laws of thought are universally true and, thus, whatever I assert accordingly stands.

Hence, on the contrary, the burden of proof is on the relativist—whether he be a theist, an agonistic or an atheist—who stands on paradox and barks at the moon.​

But the antagonist does not assert the so-called Omnipotence Paradox as a problem for epistemological relativism, does he? He asserts it as if it were a refutation of divine omnipotence premised on a universally absolute axiom of logic.

Hocus Pocus.

What the antagonist is really doing, albeit, unwittingly, is presupposing something that he himself, once again, cannot rationally demonstrate or explain. He presupposes an apriority that he doesn't even put into evidence . . . because he's not even aware of the fact that his allegation of a paradox is actually premised on something else: the inherently contradictory paradox that the laws of thought are not universally true in the first place.

That's weird because the nature of the antagonist's contradiction is self-negating; hence, it positively proves the opposite must be true!

In other words, the construct of divine omnipotence proper, that which is rationally consistent and upholds the universality of the laws of thought, is not subject to a logical fallacy that begs the question: especially to one that is asserted as if it were exempt from the falsification of the absolute laws of thought . . . especially to one that necessarily negates itself and positively affirms that the laws of thought must be universally true.

So what does this all mean? Some are still scratching their heads.

All the antagonist is really saying is God ≠ God, because if God = God, then God ≠ God. Or more to the point, divine omnipotence = divinity can do anything . . . only for those who believe in absurdities or contradictorily argue that the principle of identity is false: a notion that is rationally indemonstrable/inexplicable.

Hence, divine omnipotence necessarily = God can do all things but that which would negate His existence or contradict His nature.

The actual nature of divine omnipotence is not subject to the utterly arbitrary, unqualified, unjustifiable and irrational absurdities of presumptuous little gods in the gap.

The law of identity: for any given A: A = A; any given existent is what it is and cannot be what it is not. God = God. By definition, God = Perfection. God is perfect rationality, not the imperfection of irrationality or absurdity.


Hence, according to the laws of logic, all of reality is paradoxical/absurd . . . unless the following are true:

1. God exists!

2. God is the Principle of Identity!

3. The universal, bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought of mankind are ultimately the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind, not created.​

The paradoxical/contradictory figments of human imagination that are not logically necessary or logically possible do not have primacy over existence; they do not have primacy over the mind of God, as if the minds of creatures could be greater than the mind of the Creator. The order of contingency is the converse. Human consciousness is contingent on the mind of God and the universally absolute laws of thought thereof.

The laws of thought stand. Truth must be universally absolute, not relative. Logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities are just that: logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities. For any given A: A = A. They are not truths. The utterly arbitrary assertion that divine omniscience means the ability to do anything is logically and metaphysically false.

The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.

This is what, the fourth time you have cut and pasted that nonsense?

 

[Hollie]

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
—Proverbs 6:16–19

You shall not spread a false report.
— Exodus 23:1-2

Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.

the pot calling the kettle black
he who accuses, self accuses.

I find the people who are the least at fault,
also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.

The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.

All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.

The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.

Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.

He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.

I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.

He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.

M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.

orogenicman is a total fraud. You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.


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


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

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


Rawlings:

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

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

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

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



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


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


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


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


Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: He won't answer the question!


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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



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


Emily: Can't we all just get along?


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


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


Rawlings: You got that right.


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


Rawlings:

The ranting of a petulant 12 year old.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.


Relativists.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now here's something really weird from the other thread. An atheist directly raised the very problem I was hinting at with Boss' craziness!


The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man


The Omnipotence Paradox has been overthrown since time immemorial. Only the sophomoric think it to be of any significance at all. I just wanted you to emphatically state your position. . . .

The Omnipotence Paradox is utter nonsense, as it arbitrarily defines sans any justification that divine omnipotence must necessarily mean that God can do anything at all . . . except, of course, what he can't do. Hence, supposedly, since God can't do just anything at all, divine omnipotence is paradoxical.

Straw man!

The justified exception to this rule is self-evident and proves that a rock too big for God to move could never exist in the first place. The paradoxical absurdity is the conjecture regarding the existence of such a rock, not the existence of divine omnipotence proper.

In actuality, it's the antagonist's paradox . . . not necessarily the theist's problem at all. For example, it's neither a problem in the face of the absolute laws of thought objectively apparent to all nor a problem for the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Judeo-Christianity.

The belief to the contrary is a mere illusion, an unexamined notion that only persists in the minds of those who are gullibly biased and thoughtless.

It is, however, a problem for at least one member of this forum, for his construct of divinity is utterly overthrown by the Omnipotence Paradox.

That would be the construct of USMB member Boss, as he holds that the absolute laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle: comprehensively, the principle of identity) were created by God for mankind, not the eternally existent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind by God!

With his god you have a point, but you got nothing' on the God of the Bible.

The burden of proof is on the atheist antagonist especially, for he necessarily (unwittingly and contradictorily) presupposes not just one, not just two, but three things to be true:

1. He presupposes that the laws of thought are universally true in order to contradictorily argue that they are not universally true; that is, he argues something he cannot rationally demonstrate or explain, namely, that the principle of identity is false.

2. He presupposes God's existence as if he were one from on higher than high by insisting that divine omnipotence would necessarily mean that God can do anything . . . when that does not necessarily follow at all. In other words, he presupposes to known something about the nature of God that is not logically apparent to the rest of us.

(At this point, the atheist is sputtering that he does no such thing, but observe. . . .)

3. He contradictorily presupposes God's existence by claiming to know for a fact that God is not the Principle of Identity Himself, the very substance of and the universal ground for the laws of logic. In other words, like Boss, he pretends to know for a fact that the absolute laws of logic were created by God for mankind, not the preexistent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind, not the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of thought for all existence.

It's either that or the antagonist necessarily argues that the laws of thought were bestowed on mankind by . . . mutable nature.

Crickets chirping

The laws of thought necessarily hold that God must exist in order for the laws of thought to be absolute. In fact, the laws of thought hold that God must be the ultimate Source and Guarantor of the laws of thought, the Source and Guarantor of natural and moral law, and the Source and Guarantor of the physical laws of nature. God must be the reason for the apparent synchronization between the prescriptive, rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the descriptive properties and processes of nature.

Those who don't hold that to be true necessarily concede that whatever comes out of their mouths about anything is the esoteric mumbo jumbo of relativism. Fine. Nothing they say is authoritative, absolute or reliably true. According to them, there's no such thing as proofs for anything, let alone burdens of proof. LOL! Let them talk to rocks. Hump trees. Argue with flowers. Bark at the moon. I hold that the laws of thought are universally true and, thus, whatever I assert accordingly stands.

Hence, on the contrary, the burden of proof is on the relativist—whether he be a theist, an agonistic or an atheist—who stands on paradox and barks at the moon.​

But the antagonist does not assert the so-called Omnipotence Paradox as a problem for epistemological relativism, does he? He asserts it as if it were a refutation of divine omnipotence premised on a universally absolute axiom of logic.

Hocus Pocus.

What the antagonist is really doing, albeit, unwittingly, is presupposing something that he himself, once again, cannot rationally demonstrate or explain. He presupposes an apriority that he doesn't even put into evidence . . . because he's not even aware of the fact that his allegation of a paradox is actually premised on something else: the inherently contradictory paradox that the laws of thought are not universally true in the first place.

That's weird because the nature of the antagonist's contradiction is self-negating; hence, it positively proves the opposite must be true!

In other words, the construct of divine omnipotence proper, that which is rationally consistent and upholds the universality of the laws of thought, is not subject to a logical fallacy that begs the question: especially to one that is asserted as if it were exempt from the falsification of the absolute laws of thought . . . especially to one that necessarily negates itself and positively affirms that the laws of thought must be universally true.

So what does this all mean? Some are still scratching their heads.

All the antagonist is really saying is God ≠ God, because if God = God, then God ≠ God. Or more to the point, divine omnipotence = divinity can do anything . . . only for those who believe in absurdities or contradictorily argue that the principle of identity is false: a notion that is rationally indemonstrable/inexplicable.

Hence, divine omnipotence necessarily = God can do all things but that which would negate His existence or contradict His nature.

The actual nature of divine omnipotence is not subject to the utterly arbitrary, unqualified, unjustifiable and irrational absurdities of presumptuous little gods in the gap.

The law of identity: for any given A: A = A; any given existent is what it is and cannot be what it is not. God = God. By definition, God = Perfection. God is perfect rationality, not the imperfection of irrationality or absurdity.


Hence, according to the laws of logic, all of reality is paradoxical/absurd . . . unless the following are true:

1. God exists!

2. God is the Principle of Identity!

3. The universal, bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought of mankind are ultimately the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind, not created.​

The paradoxical/contradictory figments of human imagination that are not logically necessary or logically possible do not have primacy over existence; they do not have primacy over the mind of God, as if the minds of creatures could be greater than the mind of the Creator. The order of contingency is the converse. Human consciousness is contingent on the mind of God and the universally absolute laws of thought thereof.

The laws of thought stand. Truth must be universally absolute, not relative. Logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities are just that: logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities. For any given A: A = A. They are not truths. The utterly arbitrary assertion that divine omniscience means the ability to do anything is logically and metaphysically false.

The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.

This is what, the fourth time you have cut and pasted that nonsense?

The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.


Relativists.