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

[M.D. Rawlings]

To m.d.,

Still waiting for tag #1 being justified.

It isn't, and its far from an axiom.

The rest of the shit you posted was a waste of time.

It books down to 'we don't know,' everything else is arrogance.

Saying that a transcendent mind knows it is all knowing is and was meaningless in regard to whether IT DOES OR DOESNT EXIST. SO CONTINUING TO BRING THAT POINT UP IS PSYCHOBABBLE UNAPPLICABLE BULLSHIT. the entire convo about it was called 'an aside.'

Back to tag #1 - it is not an axiom because exists the possibility that its NOT TRUE. THEREFORE, tag rests on no ground as a poof of god. None.

Now we have the tag #1 personality. This one thinks it's God too. Amazing!

 

[Justin Davis]

To m.d.,

Still waiting for tag #1 being justified.

It isn't, and its far from an axiom.

The rest of the shit you posted was a waste of time.

It books down to 'we don't know,' everything else is arrogance.

Saying that a transcendent mind knows it is all knowing is and was meaningless in regard to whether IT DOES OR DOESNT EXIST. SO CONTINUING TO BRING THAT POINT UP IS PSYCHOBABBLE UNAPPLICABLE BULLSHIT. the entire convo about it was called 'an aside.'

Back to tag #1 - it is not an axiom because exists the possibility that its NOT TRUE. THEREFORE, tag rests on no ground as a poof of god. None.

Now we have the tag #1 personality. This one thinks it's God too. Amazing!

G.T.'s a closet polytheist.

 

[G.T.]

Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.

 

[Justin Davis]

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in? The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite? Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible? How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations? Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that arise if God is not completely omniscient? Do you know what they are?

Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this. The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever. And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important, and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth. If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that. If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me. I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.

I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion. It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.

I don't understand why you keep saying these things. All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously. This is where this whole things started over nothing. Why is that a problem for some? Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God? I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind. When did I ever pretend that I did that? I didn't do that. How could I do that or believe that I did that? That would be sick. Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind? Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time? I'm sick of his lies. He isn't making any sense. It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing. He has the rules of organic thought all wrong. He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread. He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true. He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear. Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying? Why would anyone lie about these things? Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all. I understand it better than him. It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either. I don't understand you. You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true. In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought? How could that be? You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies. How can lies help people?

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in? The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite? Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible? How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations? Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that arise if God is not completely omniscient? Do you know what they are?

Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this. The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever. And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important, and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth. If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that. If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me. I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.

I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion. It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.

I don't understand why you keep saying these things. All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously. This is where this whole things started over nothing. Why is that a problem for some? Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God? I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind. When did I ever pretend that I did that? I didn't do that. How could I do that or believe that I did that? That would be sick. Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind? Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time? I'm sick of his lies. He isn't making any sense. It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing. He has the rules of organic thought all wrong. He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread. He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true. He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear. Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying? Why would anyone lie about these things? Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all. I understand it better than him. It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either. I don't understand you. You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true. In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought? How could that be? You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies. How can lies help people?

I am obviously speaking a language that neither you or MDR understand as both of you keep misrepresenting what I have said and/or accuse me of criticizing your point of view which I have not done. I have only defended myself and my point of view. But oh well. I'm pretty sure neither of you are going to persuade anybody, however, by calling them 'liar' or 'lying nutcase" or other such terms. Speaking of helping people.

Do have a nice day Justin. I am going to drop out of the thread for awhile as I only seem to be adding to the angst and contentiousness that I was hoping to calm down.

 

[MaryL]

Prove to me god exists. Every time I hold the hand of a dying person, I ask that. God, where are you?. They die, no angels singing. Nothing happens, just silence. Death is like that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Religious dogma taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Plus, you're an idiot.

First, dogma cannot teach.

Second, the concept that the Earth was the center of the universe was developed by Aristotle, and was part of scientific/philosophical dogma of its day.

Third, you aren't very smart if an idiot has to point things like this out to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

That might be why I didn't use logic to make my argument. Not that I couldn't, I just don't see logic as the be all, end all, solution that many think it is.

Syllogistic argument against omniscience:

If a photon is monitored it will not go through two slits at the same time.

Photons that are not monitored by human or mechanical agents go through two slits at the same time.

There is no being that monitors all the photons in the universe.
​

Using logic, I just proved that God does not know everything in advance, and that he does not see everything in the universe. This does not mean that God is not capable of looking at those experiments, but it does prove, logically, that He has to focus on them.

​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're a fraud.

I already provided links that show that the Laws of Thought are not axiomatic to other forms of logic. Your refusal to accept that does not make me a fraud.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And your point would valid except, of course, it's not valid, because you are a pretender who doesn't understand Jack or Jill about logic that you can't copy and paste or regurgitate by rote; and once again, the basis of your complaint is your ignorance regarding the academic distinction between the laws of logic proper and their comprehensive principle: identity.

I am ignorant?

Let's find out what the encyclopedia says about that.

Alternate title: law of identity

The topic principle of identity is discussed in the following articles:
laws of thought

TITLE: laws of thought (logic)
traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. That is, (1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or symbolically, ∼( p · ∼ p), in which ∼ means “not” and · means...

principle of identity logic -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Have you noticed that I provide actual evidence to back up my position, while all you provide is dogma?

 

[BreezeWood]

Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.

Again, that's baseless, useless, not demonstrated, naked assertion.

But all you're saying is the very same thing M.D.R. said. Under the rules of direct evidence in constructive logic the mpta can't be assigned a truth value, so why are arguing with him as if he didn't understand something that he obviously understands way better than you? He understands it way better than anyone else on this thread. This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know. I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money. I never just take people's word for things.

Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.

the same logic could be used and has already been stated, the biblicists participation in this thread is illogical for the same reason they have give as proof for their TAG based biblical beliefs ... (again) you have had your thousands of years to prove your point and have failed, ergo the reason for this thread - as it presupposes all previous arguments have failed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know. I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money. I never just take people's word for things.

Sigh.

All I said about constructive logic is that the laws of thought are not considered universal axioms because the premises they are founded upon are unproven.

Here is what Wiki says about that.

Semantically, intuitionistic logic is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are not admitted as axioms. Excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not hold universally as they do with classical logic.

Intuitionistic logic - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Want to explain how that proves I don't know what I am talking about? Remember my warning about dogmatic beliefs and look at the way Rawlings responds emotionally to facts that contradict his beliefs, while I simply point out the actual evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.

Are you saying it is impossible for anyone to know things you don't? How is that rational? If you were actually rational you would say it is the only conclusion you can come to based on your understanding, and admit that other people may, or may not, have a better grasp on things than you do.

Are you rational, or do you still claim the ability to speak on what every single human being understands?

 

[G.T.]

No, I don't claim its impossible for others to know things I don't, jagoff.

I claim no one knows for an absolute fact that god exists, or doesn't. Cuz if there was absolute proof of such, and not just dick swinging contests like you and m.w. were having, there wouldn't need BE these discussions.

But lest we forget - you're a douchebag who isn't worth it. Others are also finding this out, as you can plainly see. Let that marinate.

 

[Taz]

Religious dogma taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Plus, you're an idiot.

First, dogma cannot teach.

Second, the concept that the Earth was the center of the universe was developed by Aristotle, and was part of scientific/philosophical dogma of its day.

Third, you aren't very smart if an idiot has to point things like this out to you.

Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.

The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.

 

[Justin Davis]

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in? The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite? Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible? How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations? Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that arise if God is not completely omniscient? Do you know what they are?

Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this. The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever. And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important, and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth. If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that. If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me. I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.

I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion. It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.

I don't understand why you keep saying these things. All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously. This is where this whole things started over nothing. Why is that a problem for some? Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God? I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind. When did I ever pretend that I did that? I didn't do that. How could I do that or believe that I did that? That would be sick. Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind? Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time? I'm sick of his lies. He isn't making any sense. It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing. He has the rules of organic thought all wrong. He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread. He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true. He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear. Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying? Why would anyone lie about these things? Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all. I understand it better than him. It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either. I don't understand you. You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true. In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought? How could that be? You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies. How can lies help people?

I am obviously speaking a language that neither you or MDR understand as both of you keep misrepresenting what I have said and/or accuse me of criticizing your point of view which I have not done. I have only defended myself and my point of view. But oh well. I'm pretty sure neither of you are going to persuade anybody, however, by calling them 'liar' or 'lying nutcase" or other such terms. Speaking of helping people.

Do have a nice day Justin. I am going to drop out of the thread for awhile as I only seem to be adding to the angst and contentiousness that I was hoping to calm down.

I know what happened on this thread. While you were telling Q.W. how opened minded he is and how closed minded others are I'm watching him say the most ridiculous things that are clear as a bell wrong, making statements that are subjective as if they were something obvious and how others are flatly wrong. A person who lies about something like that and lies about other things and about what other people are saying is doing harm to both the truth and to the reputation of others. I don't think that's okay. How would I persuade Q.W. to stop lying after seeing that he was reasonably and civilly spoken to about a simple thing at first that should have never been an issue in the first place only to see him make it even worst with the things he said about constructive logic which he does not understand. He just went on and on with it way past the point of being shown that what he's saying can't be right. Who in their right mind tries to persuade a liar?

 

[Justin Davis]

Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.

Well in the face of the evidence its not a very wise belief but it does beat the silliness of atheism. But why did you change your mind about all those beliefs or start calling your beliefs stupid and silly and stuff? That's all I'm wondering.

 

[G.T.]

Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.

Well in the face of the evidence its not a very wise belief but it does beat the silliness of atheism. But why did you change your mind about all those beliefs or start calling your beliefs stupid and silly and stuff? That's all I'm wondering.

I didn't change my mind at all, I likely was misinterpreted.

I think theism and atheism are both ego based beliefs. The human ego, being sentient we feel we need rational answers for everything.

That is why for years we adhered to incorrect theories, as opposed to 'no theory,' which is WAY more rational in the face of insufficient absolute answers.

Storms b/c we pissed the gods off? Ego centrism. Later learned: climate science.

I believe that any person who feels that gods existence is conclusively proven is not rational, but blinded by dogma, blinded by ego and needing to insert an answer where there really is yet to be one.

The TAG argument is the greatest example of hubris, its first premise is a half cocked (and arrogant) assertion where the human mind has no basis for calling it self evident.

Some can see that, quite clearly. We've let our ego down.

Others call US, the know it alls.

Windbag is just an ass hole. He's busy quibbling over irrelevant minutia.

I told him "all you do is nit pick minutia, you'd likely see an Einstein theory and instead of discussing the theory, whine about spelling.

His response? "I can't read German."

The exact thing he WOULD say to affirm what I said of him: i created an anecdote out of thin air to point out his obsessive deflections, and he responds by missing the crux of the anecdote and deflecting - minutia.


He is dog shit.

 

[Justin Davis]

This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know. I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money. I never just take people's word for things.

Sigh.

All I said about constructive logic is that the laws of thought are not considered universal axioms because the premises they are founded upon are unproven.

Here is what Wiki says about that.

Semantically, intuitionistic logic is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are not admitted as axioms. Excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not hold universally as they do with classical logic.

Intuitionistic logic - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Want to explain how that proves I don't know what I am talking about? Remember my warning about dogmatic beliefs and look at the way Rawlings responds emotionally to facts that contradict his beliefs, while I simply point out the actual evidence.

You're ridiculous. You see that's not all you keep saying. You lied again. He called you a liar because you're a liar not because your lies are facts. And you're lying again pretending to understand something you don't. The bold part of your post on the laws is not how logicians understand the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic. Those are you words and they're wrong. That's you pretending again to understand something you don't understand. See you keep making other statements like that all the time. Then you quote something from Wikipedia that's right pretending it means the same thing when it doesn't and R's real knowledge in his post about constructive logic is written by someone who actually knows how to use is proves that you're lying again. What part of those facts show you to be a liar? All of them. I actually checked you out after reading your misunderstanding of the law of excluded middle in classical logic and spent a lot of time learning how it works because like R says it's very useful. There is nothing in constructive logic that makes the axioms of organic logic false or stops them from being universal axioms in organic logic and I watched you pretend not to understand that concepts proven in constructive logic have to conform back to organic logic in real applications, including the law of excluded middle. In one post you simply ignored what R told you and said something stupid again. And you didn't tell him how constructive logic works. He told you.

 

[Justin Davis]

Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.

Well in the face of the evidence its not a very wise belief but it does beat the silliness of atheism. But why did you change your mind about all those beliefs or start calling your beliefs stupid and silly and stuff? That's all I'm wondering.

I didn't change my mind at all, I likely was misinterpreted.

I think theism and atheism are both ego based beliefs. The human ego, being sentient we feel we need rational answers for everything.

That is why for years we adhered to incorrect theories, as opposed to 'no theory,' which is WAY more rational in the face of insufficient absolute answers.

Storms b/c we pissed the gods off? Ego centrism. Later learned: climate science.

I believe that any person who feels that gods existence is conclusively proven is not rational, but blinded by dogma, blinded by ego and needing to insert an answer where there really is yet to be one.

The TAG argument is the greatest example of hubris, its first premise is a half cocked (and arrogant) assertion where the human mind has no basis for calling it self evident.

Some can see that, quite clearly. We've let our ego down.

Others call US, the know it alls.

Windbag is just an ass hole. He's busy quibbling over irrelevant minutia.

I told him "all you do is nit pick minutia, you'd likely see an Einstein theory and instead of discussing the theory, whine about spelling.

His response? "I can't read German."

The exact thing he WOULD say to affirm what I said of him: i created an anecdote out of thin air to point out his obsessive deflections, and he responds by missing the crux of the anecdote and deflecting - minutia.


He is dog shit.

You're lying, of course. You’re among the persons on this thread who have acted like gods pretending to have proven things or to know things in an academic sense and its pure subjective philosophy. Q.W. is especially fond of subjective, make it up as you go along philosophy. Q.W. lies about logic and lies about science. Prachettford lies about definitions. Foxfryre imagines liars can be persuaded. You're all ridiculous, everyone of you, tapping out your lies knowing they're lies pretending their not lies. You guys lie to yourselves and you lie to each other and you even know that you're lying to each other. That's the funniest thing of all. And you tell lies about others too, especially about those telling you the truth. You'd lie to rocks if they had ears.