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

[BreezeWood]

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.

.

servitude: It's really odd how you guys never state the simple truth about the inability of humans to logically deny God's existence.

nothing as the christian god exists without a practical application, thanks for proving my point ... over and over again.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Boss:
RE: Dealing with antisocial personalities

And neither should you nor I "jump to conclusions" and create our OWN perception
of why M.D. is acting like a stubborn fundamentalist on one hand, then stopping to explain his views as we would, then turning around and sticking his tongue out, taunting "na-na na-na nah-nah" like a sixth grade school boy.

I don't think he would act this way if he were in a serious conference
with Jehovah's Witness Elders, Church of Christ, Lutheran and Catholic theologians,
trying to discuss how to form a consensus on teaching the Trinity, and which
forms of spiritism are demonic and which methods of Spiritual Healing are natural and necessary for health.

So Boss, I plead with you, please not to jump to the same hasty negative judgments of M.D.
as he does of others "he does not understand." I don't get it either, so neither should I make assumptions or assertions as to what is causing this and what might resolve it!

I would HAVE to see him in the other context, to see how he speaks with Elders who talk on this higher level, before I assess or judge his perception.

If he is in the wrong element, his weird way of reacting makes that very clear.

I've also blown up at people when that is not my usual nature when pushed beyond my limits.
I would rather people judge me when I am at my best, not my worst.

And for whatever reason, M.D. is showing us both his best and worst sides,
so at least he is honest in showing us both.

If you saw footage of me having meltdowns at City Council meetings,
where I had to quit going it pissed me off so much,
you would not believe it is the same person being more diplomatic here.

Other people who only see that side of me, would not believe I can
make a coherent Constitutional argument and be the same person.

In the wrong context, this can bring out the opposite of what we normally are.
We have to take the good with the bad. I trust that as bad as M.D.'s bad side gets,
imagine what his good side must be like to balance that out.

So I want to see him use that side, in the right context,
to be very powerful and effective. I have the same problem.
We have bigger battles to fight, and shouldn't frustrate ourselves this way.
We have work to do, M.D. is underchallenged here
and is meant for greater things that will take so much work it will keep him from digressing
as he does here.

He reminds me of the genius kids I tutored who would act up and even fail classes,
because they were bored and needed stimulus so they created bigger messes rebelling against their teachers.

But if you gave them bigger challenges, they acted like bigger people and focused there.
I know someone who said she mentored a sociopathic student who was like that,
and finally succeeded after a business executive recognized his talent and taught him
how to manage higher level operations where the student did very well and was just bored out of his skull.
Nothing stimulated him enough because he did not have the same level of neurological response
as other people; he could even take cigarette burns and not feel them, so it took a much much higher
level of intellectual stimulus to keep his brain focused or he would degenerate into destructive acts trying
to stimulate any kind of interest or response in his brain.

M.D. may have such a high functioning brain that it takes a lot more to trigger interest and response.
He keeps saying other people are sociopathic, well maybe it takes one to know one.

If M.D. doesn't have high enough levels of mental challenge, he could be just like those students
who go out of their way to create some chaos or emotional reaction out of others because they can't feel it.
They are like starved for stimulus.

I am close to guessing this may be similar to what M.D. feels when he interacts with us.
So bored and cannot understand, feel or sympathize with us. Just sees the OBJECTIVE
points and wants everyone else to adhere to that. This reminds me of M.E. Thomas
"Hiding in Plain Sight" where she describes what it's like to have an antisocial personality
and have to act out all the niceties for other people, when the sociopathic brain doesn't need or care for that.

It is highly irritating and feels like lying to people socially to get along.

Even if M.D. only has traits or reactions of someone who is antisocial or sociopathic,
I think it would help to understand the social dynamics of people like that.

So maybe the same accommodations might work in how we include
M.D. in our interactions by understanding the fuller context.

He is frustrated, too.
When I get frustrated, I am twenty times worse than M.D.
I am an extreme empath, where I can completely lose it being overwhelmed with grief and emotions,
but M.D. may be on the other side of the spectrum and mimic
the antisocial or sociopathic types who don't have empathy for others,
and just don't know how or WHY they need to respond with any type of diplomacy
when the problem is "with other people." They just don't get why this should be on them!

 

[amrchaos]

Hi guys

Long time no post?

You want to here a "miracle"(although the possibility of it happening is really large--at least 1 in 3, almost)

My favorite football team, the Atlanta Falcons, are 4-7 and has a good chance of making the playoffs!

Personally, I wish they put an end to this season and trade their playoff spot for better draft picks. Their Swiss cheese defense is a big migraine to behold. If all the pick are not from the SEC, we don't want them!!

 

[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.

She believes in both. Sure you do.

Yes, Justin!

I do believe when the Bible says that ALL authorities, visible or invisible, are created by and given to the Lord.
(Colossians 1: 16)

I understand that Jesus as Divine Justice based on God's Universal Truth
FULFILLS all laws, both *Natural laws* (that our civil laws and secular laws of science / sociology and psychology are based on, including Buddhism and Constitutional laws)
AND our *Scriptural laws* that Jews Christians and Muslims are under.

So both the Natural laws of the secular Gentiles
and the Spiritual laws of the churched believers in their various tribes,
are Governed by Jesus as the Universal Law of Justice by which all humanity is made equal.

I believe Christ Jesus fulfills all of these laws, uniting them in one spirit of Truth,
as "Restorative Justice" that bring peace harmony and healing to all people.

So this is spiritual Salvation in Christ, the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven.

Dear Justin Davis: is your faith so small
that you not only don't believe this,
but you cannot believe I believe it?

But THANKS For posting this, because I think it proves
you are not M.D. Rawlings. He might spend 20 paragraphs
to say what you said in one sentence. Thanks for clarifying this!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi M.D.
I can see how TAG is part of #1
to understand and love God with all our hearts minds and souls.

What about #2 and #3.

How are you using TAG to "love your neighbors as Christ loves us"

It seems to me you are demonstrating rejecting, mocking and rebellion.
I don't see how your messages to Hollie, Inevitable and others are
showing correction through divine forgiveness and embracing
one another as equal children of God through Christ.

Where are you practicing #2 and #3?

 

[Justin Davis]

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

Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 silly things.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 things.

She enjoys your antics, too!

I see both lists as a serious attempt to communicate where you are coming from.
So I take you all seriously, but glad you amuse and see the humor in each other.

P.S. Justin Davis and M.D. Rawlings
If you don't want to be seen as a joke, but taken seriously,
maybe you should follow the Golden Rule Commandment #2
and love/understand your neighbor as yourself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Oh, so now no one is accepting it but me. Rawlings is on another thread right now exploding the atheists' arguments with the same argument and logic roundly supported by the Christians. I'm using his argument and logic, really, everybody's logic, the organic logic of humans, on another thread with winning approval. You guys are just a bunch of missing link relativists out of your minds. The omnipotence paradox wipes your little god out while the real God of logic wipes the omnipotence paradox out. Looks like you lose again.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 things.

She enjoys your antics, too!

I see both lists as a serious attempt to communicate where you are coming from.
So I take you all seriously, but glad you amuse and see the humor in each other.

P.S. Justin Davis and M.D. Rawlings
If you don't want to be seen as a joke, but taken seriously,
maybe you should follow the Golden Rule Commandment #2
and love/understand your neighbor as yourself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You have no idea what's going on in other threads on this forum. The seven things come down on the three classical laws of logic. Are you . You cannot refute the three classical laws of logic. That's not possible.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Oh, so now no one is accepting it but me. Rawlings is on another thread right now exploding the atheists' arguments with the same argument and logic roundly supported by the Christians. I'm using his argument and logic, really, everybody's logic, the organic logic of humans, on another thread with winning approval. You guys are just a bunch of missing link relativists out of your minds. The omnipotence paradox wipes your little god out while the real God of logic wipes the omnipotence paradox out. Looks like you lose again.

Hi Justin Davis: You and M.D. are so focused
on Commandment #1 on God
you are missing #2 and #3 on the connection with neighbors through Christ.

The God part of the Trinity should never be taken out of context
with Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The three are ONE.

You may be getting 1 out of 3, but what about the other 2?

See also the Scripture to Baptize all nations in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Why are you leaving Jesus Christ out of the equation?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 things.

She enjoys your antics, too!

I see both lists as a serious attempt to communicate where you are coming from.
So I take you all seriously, but glad you amuse and see the humor in each other.

P.S. Justin Davis and M.D. Rawlings
If you don't want to be seen as a joke, but taken seriously,
maybe you should follow the Golden Rule Commandment #2
and love/understand your neighbor as yourself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You have no idea what's going on in other threads on this forum. The seven things come down on the three classical laws of logic. Are you . You cannot refute the three classical laws of logic. That's not possible.

I'm not refuting.
I am saying you are excluding parts that go with God.

God is one with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Why are you leaving these out?

I offered to focus on Spiritual Healing which demonstrates the Holy Spirit.
I offer to form a consensus on laws, INCLUDING TAG,
which is established through Christ Jesus.

Justin Davis I am INCLUDING TAG along with
Spiritual Healing to demonstrate the Holy Spirit
and Consensus on Law to demonstrate Christ Jesus.

Surely you do not reject the Holy Trinity as one?
Are you sure you are fully Christian?

Most Christians believers recognize me if they have the same faith.
The only people who reject me have issues with their faith and don't fully believe yet.

Justin, do you believe in Spiritual Healing?
Why do you think I am against you when I am INCLUDING you, M.D. and TAG?

You are leaving out Christ Jesus and Holy Spirit that go along with God
to fulfill the Trinity as one. Where are these in TAG, can you show me
where Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit are including in TAG as part of God?

M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis
as a Christian I * AGREE * with you on TAG and GOD
and just ask that you expand to INCLUDE
explanations of the Holy Spirit and Christ Jesus.

How is that against TAG/GOD to share
the meaning of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ?

Surely you are not denying Christ Jesus are you?
Can you show me where this is explained in your TAG?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 things.

She enjoys your antics, too!

I see both lists as a serious attempt to communicate where you are coming from.
So I take you all seriously, but glad you amuse and see the humor in each other.

P.S. Justin Davis and M.D. Rawlings
If you don't want to be seen as a joke, but taken seriously,
maybe you should follow the Golden Rule Commandment #2
and love/understand your neighbor as yourself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You have no idea what's going on in other threads on this forum. The seven things come down on the three classical laws of logic. Are you . You cannot refute the three classical laws of logic. That's not possible.

OK Justin Davis, let's try this:
Can you, in your own words not M.D.
summarize the "three classic laws of logic" in your own words.

And then you and I can reconcile how these three laws
line up with the Great Commandments.

There must be one that aligns with God, one with Christ and one with the Holy Spirit.

Can you describe these yourself?
Can you tell me which correspond with the Holy Trinity?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

See Posts:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236219/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/


The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presuppositional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

See Post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236118/

The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively:

Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry



Note the attempt to overthrow: Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki.



Note the actuality of that attempt: Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.


What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.

Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies would normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!

The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.

In other words, 2 + 2 = 4 presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make 2 + 2 = 4 go away.

 

[BreezeWood]

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence (See Post )
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

.

we'll try again to for an answer - sinner.


existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Things™
1. We exist!

2. The cosmological order exists!

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

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator!

5. Currently, science cannot verify or falsify God's existence!

6. On the very fact of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being 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:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236118/


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236219/


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/​

7. All six of the above things are objectively and universally true for human knowers/thinkers due to the absolute, incontrovertible laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle!


I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

These are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for God's existence.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow or will even try.

But what we all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the actuality behind the construct of God of human cognition would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite beings are in no position to presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be a presumptuously subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do comprehend the prospect of the highest conceivable standard of perfection for divine attribution whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent consciousness of self-aware personhood, a Being of absolute perfection and infinitely unparalleled greatness.

No one escapes The Seven Things ™

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.

we'll try again to for an answer - sinner.


existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?

.

Stop it. You're as mad as a hatter (Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me!) No one knows what you're talking about.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™

1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.

5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That's weird.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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'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?​

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.

 

[G.T.]

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.