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

[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:

The ranting of a petulant 12 year old.

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

 

[Hollie]

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.

Drunken babbling.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi M.D. Rawlings

Relativists would remind you there are other names for Dogs:
Chien, Perro
and variations of Hound (Hund, Hond, Hun)
How to Say Dog in Different Languages 1 Step with Pictures

Since there are more variations close to HOUND
then if you are teaching someone to translate,
it might HELP to explain that HOUND is another reference to
a canine or dog.

If you only INSIST that EVERYONE call the animal a D-O-G
you might miss the people who would have made the connection
faster to their OWN NATIVE language if you explained that HOUND is related to DOG
and they could understand since their word for it is Hund, Hun, Hond or something closer to HOUND.

Same with GOD

If you are dealing with people who believe in Laws of NATURE,
or Wisdom, or Spiritual Oneness of Humanity/Interconnected Life
you can explain God that way and not lose your audience by only preaching G-O-D as you wish to focus.

It's still the same GOD, M.D.

You are so afraid the equation is going to be skewed to
start equating God with something God is not,
you won't even let God be translated into similar terms.

Fear means lack of faith. Somewhere you do not have faith
that people will come to God's truth from these other paths
that God equally made. You don't fully trust God to know what
he is doing by making people think differently and understanding from different angles.

You think the diversity is bad but God uses it for good and you FEAR it.
Sorry for you, M.D.!

I can see the diversity in God's plans and I celebrate and marvel at the miracle
that we can all be talking about the same God and same truth but see it so differently.
I trust in God and pray that God opens you up to see where you look at the world
and others with the eyes of God's love and that is greater than any fear that blinds or biases 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.

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.

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

Hi M.D. Rawlings:
If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.

Are you saying that your points TRUMP
the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.

Please let me know if you think your words are
more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

Thanks, M.D.

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. If I count as one of your "Relativists" then I don't hate you and you might need to adjust your rule.
Maybe it is too absolutist, and not relative enough to accommodate my brand of relativity!

For under my understanding of relativity and diversity, I believe it is only consistent I should accommodate you, too, not hate you. That isn't treating you as an equal.

I know it is difficult to grasp, that I might actually be a Democrat who practices inclusion to the point
of including opponents, far right, fundamentalists and all manner of views and beliefs on the spectrum in between.

Tough concept to grasp: full inclusion that includes absolutists with the idea of relative views and equally respecting all.
Not many liberals go to that extreme, so I understand this is upsetting.

If I don't fit under Relativists, you might fit me under Absolutists, because I believe in both.
I believe you can have the absolute universal concepts underneath, as well as the relative expressions on top.
You can have the cake and the icing, and they don't have to compete with each other.

Imagine that, yes, I know it's hard. Sorry if it gives you a headache trying to peg me into one of your slots.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oh, no, I missed this. This is a hoot!

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

Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men!

1. Hollie: I do not understand the difference between science and my fanatical belief in the spaghetti monsters of materialistic metaphysics!

2. Hollie: I never realized that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old!

3. Hollie: If God created the universe, why didn't He create the space shuttle?

4. Hollie: Since humans and dinosaurs apparently didn't roam the Earth at the same time, why I am I asking why we don't find dinosaur and human fossils in the same layer of geological stratum?

5. Hollie: Derp-derp. La-la. Hiccup Burp Blah-blah. I'm slap happy out of my mind 97% of the time. The other 3% of the time, I'm comatose.

6. Hollie: Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically and philosophically accepted, respectively, as gravity and photosynthesis, am I right about the age of the Earth, the existence of gravity and the processes of photosynthesis while I mindlessly follow authority regarding a biological theory of speciation that's premised on the gratuitous presupposition of a rationally and empirically indemonstrable a priority of metaphysical naturalism? I know. Let's ask Rawlings:

First, with regard to the Creationist’s perspective, the correct term is micro-speciation, not microevolution. And while many millions of generations of fruit flies have undergone micro-speciation in the laboratory, not a single one of them has ever underwent macroevolution. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. There's a vast difference between the changes that occur within species and the transmutation of species. The rest is just talk, the party line of evolutionary theory. And that’s the crux of the matter, isn't it? We have before us the idea that all species evolved from a common ancestor . . . one that is driven by yet another idea, the underlying metaphysical presupposition of a materialistic naturalism.

. . . The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. There's nothing necessary about it. And given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being. The record would look the same.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. To characterize my interpretation of the evidence as an error begs the question and mistakes the arrows for something they're not, i.e., the artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . Pointing to a small handful of groupings of allegedly related lineages consisting of an equally small handful of intermediate forms, which is the best that evolutionists have ever been able to come up with out of millions of fossils, does not impress me. . . . The number of changes required and the degree of complexity involved, for example, in the enterprise of transforming a land animal into a sea animal, or vice versa, are immense. Just how many transitional forms are we talking about here? Such a splash didn't take place in one dive. It involved every system—skeletal, respiratory, digestive, reproductive, circulatory, integumentary, lymphatic . . . the transitional migration of a snout into a blowhole on the top of the head!

Are we talking about thousands of transitional forms? Tens of thousands? Multiply that by millions of species.

I'm well acquainted with the rhetoric that evolutionists invoke regarding the dearth of plausible intermediate forms in the fossil record, like how we would not expect "to find . . . half-bat/half-bird intermediate forms in the fossil record", as it was sardonically put by an evolutionist recently.

Oh? And why not?

The early Darwinists, including Darwin himself, certainly expected them and were perplexed by their absence. And what's Neo-Darwinism anyway, really, but a collection of attempts (including punctuated equilibrium) to explain why we don't see them.

It was and remains a serious problem for the theory, one which evolutionists themselves are actively trying to resolve. It's just that the theory's leading lights tend not to talk about it frankly or very often. The rest is just double-speak. In the meantime, they think to turn this problem into a smear against the skeptics who raise it, that is, against those who keep resurrecting the bone they want to keep buried. Moreover, in spite of the standard meaning of "change" in evolutionary theory, with which I am well acquainted from a purely theoretical perspective and do understand . . . a scheme of common ancestry necessarily does entail transmutation.

The problem here is, that you continue to make assertions as to the bias and dishonesty of those who understand evolution. Most scientists understand evolution, and realise that it is the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. It meshes neatly with other sciences, such as genetics, medicine, dentistry, paleontology, archeology, geology, chemistry, physics and any others you could name. —Labsci
​

Actually, anything can be brought into line with the theory. There's really nothing "meshy" about it. Anyone of those fields could do without it, especially physics. Evolutionary theory makes few predictions, and in truth the sort of predictions it makes are historical in nature. They are made in hindsight, wherein something or another is observed and then (viola!) the evolutionist proclaims that's exactly what the theory would expect or predict. (The expectations of Creationism can do the same thing, and you might see that if you were to rid yourself of certain assumptions about the nature of the biblical record and the baggage that has been piled on top of it without due consideration.) Anything can be brought into line with a tautological mechanism of "what survives, survives." Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. The arguments that have been made by some, including the likes of Dawkins, to the contrary are nonsense. And that's problematical for any attempt to account for the conservation of any ensemble of genetic characteristics that might affect transmutation.

Nothing visible is going to happen in so short a time as 200 years in the laboratory. If a fly changed into anything other than a fly, it would blow evolution out of the water, and falsify it completely. —Labsci
​

Actually, we're talking about millions of generations of accelerated speciation. The origin point of generational experimentation on fruit flies was to achieve an observable instance of transmutational speciation. In any event, the thrust of my point regarding fruit flies had to do with this statement: "[m]any microevolutionary steps equals macroevolution." At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. You imagine a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believe that this scenario provides the "best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth." I see a biological history consisting of a series of creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within. The evidence would look the same either way.

In accordance with your confirmation of my point about fruit flies, we can't observe speciation beyond the microevolutionary steps and, also, we don't see an abundance of obvious transitory forms in the fossil record, so what's Darwinism (the gratuitous insertion or extrapolation of a common ancestry) ultimately based on, if not a materialistic naturalism? There's nothing in the observable and quantifiable compositions and processes of biological systems that is at odds with the fundamentals of Creationism. Hence, as for the regnant scientific community's a prior bias, what is the substance of this "sand" you claim Creationism is built on?

In my opinion, it follows that the post-modern Catholic Church prematurely and unnecessarily conceded creatio ex essentia, just as the prescientific Church errantly adopted Aristotelian cosmology. (The Bible does not recommend a literal geocentric cosmology, by the way.) While the latter is understandable, the former is not, and neither of them are biblically justifiable.

There is no need to "modernize" the Bible. The ancients' pre-scientific conception of the universe is not relevant to biblical inerrancy, much less the prescientific expositions of empirical phenomena that might be attributed to the Bible by misguided believers and non-believers alike. God's word stands and stays; it's surety is not subject to the passing conceptual fads of imperfect and half-blind creatures.

While the Bible does make some scientific claims, it's not a scientific treatise and never has been, except in the minds of some. I've never thought of Creationism as being anything more than a general exposition of origins against the backdrop of original sin and the problem of evil. Beyond that, God has simply left the details of scientific inquiry to us. Learned, post-scientific hermeneutics has no problem with the idea that Creationism is not a scientific system of thought, but merely a general set of guidelines by which we may properly understand the essential meaning of the empirical data.

And there's no ideological tension between the Bible and the Big Bang theory, if that's what you're implying. On the contrary, it is more suggestive of creatio ex nihilo than steady-state theory, though as Lemaître himself rightly observed the appearance is not necessarily conclusive of anything in that regard.

. . . evolutionists are playing a game of conceptual hide-and-seek when they claim that the classical construct of irreducible complexity in and of itself has been debunked. Refuting Behe's ill-considered application of it to biochemistry—a half-baked version that fails to anticipate the obvious possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions—is of no consequence. (Incidentally, I wrote Behe about that possibility back in '96 after reading his book. Sure enough, well, you know the rest. . . .) Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems, it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising by blind luck. That has not been debunked by anyone. Behe should have paid more attention to the essential quality of Paley’s formulation and the prerequisites of Kant's.

In other words, in the classical tradition, irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.

Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute Behe's straw man with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts. Instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants; that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.

But the sheep go "bah, bah, bah."

Debunked?

What kind of scientific term is that anyway? The matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It's a matter of experimentation and falsification.

Now you see it or maybe you still don't.

In other words, ultimately, it's not even a matter of morphology. It's a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces. And to my mind that means nothing of particular interest could arise in the first place without the intervention of an intelligent being. I trust that we at least agree on that point, given that you are a theistic evolutionist. Why would you recommend the prattle of atheist savants who must necessarily override the putative distinction between the vagaries of abiogenesis and the calculi of evolutionary theory?​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men (continued)!

10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist

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

7. Hollie: How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history? I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.

8. Hollie: Have I ever made any sense about anything? I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.

9. Hollie: I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.

10. Hollie: I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.

 

[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:

The ranting of a petulant 12 year old.

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

Hi M.D. Rawlings:
If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.

Are you saying that your points TRUMP
the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.

Please let me know if you think your words are
more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

Thanks, M.D.

Of course these things are in the Bible, including the TAG argument, the leading biblical proof for God's existence. In fact, all of the classical proofs for God's existence are expressed in the Bible, but the TAG is the most prominent. In any event, The Seven Things are apparent to us all. It's ridiculous to say they're not.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Drunken babbling.

Gee wiz, Hollie. We have to put you down for The Seven Things™ again? Really? Oh well. . . .

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!
Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.

3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™ Again

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

These are 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, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10193696/.



1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe

b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness".​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now, though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not. So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered.

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

 

[G.T.]

No they're not. "God is biologically hardwired in our brains" is most definitely an opinion - not a fact.

 

[dblack]

Hey guys! How's things?

 

[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.

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

Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men

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

Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men (continued)!

10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist

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

7. Hollie: How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history? I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.

8. Hollie: Have I ever made any sense about anything? I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.

9. Hollie: I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.

10. Hollie: I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.

Ten Incredibly Important Stumpers To Put Before Religious Whackjobs

Nobody Escapes the Ten Things!


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

 

[Hollie]

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.

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

Hi M.D. Rawlings:
If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.

Are you saying that your points TRUMP
the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.

Please let me know if you think your words are
more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

Thanks, M.D.

Of course these things are in the Bible, including the TAG argument, the leading biblical proof for God's existence. In fact, all of the classical proofs for God's existence are expressed in the Bible, but the TAG is the most prominent. In any event, The Seven Things are apparent to us all. It's ridiculous to say they're not.

More ridiculous babbling.

Typical Rawling'ism:

"The various bibles are true because the various bibles say they are true"

Nobody Escapes The Ten Things!

 

[dblack]

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.

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

Hi M.D. Rawlings:
If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.

Are you saying that your points TRUMP
the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.

Please let me know if you think your words are
more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

Thanks, M.D.

Of course these things are in the Bible, including the TAG argument, the leading biblical proof for God's existence. In fact, all of the classical proofs for God's existence are expressed in the Bible, but the TAG is the most prominent. In any event, The Seven Things are apparent to us all. It's ridiculous to say they're not.

More ridiculous babbling.

Typical Rawling'ism:

"The various bibles are true because the various bibles say they are true"

Nobody Escapes The Ten Things!

Sweet! We're up to ten now?

 

[Hollie]

Hey guys! How's things?

Good. Just having a little fun watching Rawling having a major meltdown.

I've got him on board with The Ten Things.

I'm going to convert him to Islam next and assign him to a position as prayer leader at the Harun Yahya Madrassah.

 

[Hollie]

The ranting of a petulant 12 year old.

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

Hi M.D. Rawlings:
If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.

Are you saying that your points TRUMP
the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.

Please let me know if you think your words are
more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

Thanks, M.D.

Of course these things are in the Bible, including the TAG argument, the leading biblical proof for God's existence. In fact, all of the classical proofs for God's existence are expressed in the Bible, but the TAG is the most prominent. In any event, The Seven Things are apparent to us all. It's ridiculous to say they're not.

More ridiculous babbling.

Typical Rawling'ism:

"The various bibles are true because the various bibles say they are true"

Nobody Escapes The Ten Things!

Sweet! We're up to ten now?

But wait. If you call in the next ten minutes, we'll double your order. Just pay additional shipping and processing.

 

[Justin Davis]

No they're not. "God is biologically hardwired in our brains" is most definitely an opinion - not a fact.

It's really odd how you guys never state the simple truth about the inability of humans to logically deny God's existence. It's as if you're blushing over something embarrassing, trying hide some dirty little secret we all know but you can't bring yourselves to say out loud. Even Emily suffers from this strange epidemic of amnesia.

 

[Justin Davis]

P.S. If I count as one of your "Relativists" then I don't hate you and you might need to adjust your rule.
Maybe it is too absolutist, and not relative enough to accommodate my brand of relativity!

For under my understanding of relativity and diversity, I believe it is only consistent I should accommodate you, too, not hate you. That isn't treating you as an equal.

I know it is difficult to grasp, that I might actually be a Democrat who practices inclusion to the point
of including opponents, far right, fundamentalists and all manner of views and beliefs on the spectrum in between.

Tough concept to grasp: full inclusion that includes absolutists with the idea of relative views and equally respecting all.
Not many liberals go to that extreme, so I understand this is upsetting.

If I don't fit under Relativists, you might fit me under Absolutists, because I believe in both.
I believe you can have the absolute universal concepts underneath, as well as the relative expressions on top.
You can have the cake and the icing, and they don't have to compete with each other.

Imagine that, yes, I know it's hard. Sorry if it gives you a headache trying to peg me into one of your slots.

She believes in both. Sure you do.

 

[Justin Davis]

Hey guys! How's things?

Well your fellow lunatics are still thinking they should be in charge of the asylum but coolers heads just keep putting them in their places. Same old thing, nothing new.

 

[Boss]

It's still the same GOD, M.D.

You are so afraid the equation is going to be skewed to
start equating God with something God is not,
you won't even let God be translated into similar terms.

Fear means lack of faith. Somewhere you do not have faith
that people will come to God's truth from these other paths
that God equally made. You don't fully trust God to know what
he is doing by making people think differently and understanding from different angles.

You think the diversity is bad but God uses it for good and you FEAR it.
Sorry for you, M.D.!

Bingo! The problem here is not that MD hasn't spammed the board enough with his banal argument or that we haven't made every effort to reach out to him to find common ground. It is that MD lacks faith in his own God, one created in his image. This is often a problem with religious fanatics. You either accept THEIR God under THEIR terms, or you are condemned and must be defeated.

MD has used his spiritual awareness to build a God of his own perceptions, one that does not have true omnipotence or omniscience, but is confined to limitations of human thought. MD believes this makes his God easier to explain, easier to build an argument for, but it doesn't. As we can see, no one is accepting his argument other than Justin.

This frustration has caused MD to become a parody of himself. He has now taken to the method of repeating his argument over and over, like some sort of mad man. This is not healthy.