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

[G.T.]

I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.

Again proving how fucking dumb you are.

I argued that no human has proof.

I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.

Again proving how fucking dumb you are.

I argued that no human has proof.

I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.

The only way you could possibly know that no human has proof is if you know what every single human being knows.

In other words, no one can know anything you do not.

 

[G.T.]

No, the only way I can possibly know - is that information travels light speed at a 24/7 clip.

Wake the fuck up.

Also.....still no word of YOUR opinion or theory on GOD, cuz you're a pussy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the only way I can possibly know - is that information travels light speed at a 24/7 clip.

Wake the fuck up.

Also.....still no word of YOUR opinion or theory on GOD, cuz you're a pussy.

And that proves that no one can possibly know something you don't.

Can you tell me my birth name? After all, that is part of the information that travels at the speed of light.

 

[G.T.]

No, the only way I can possibly know - is that information travels light speed at a 24/7 clip.

Wake the fuck up.

Also.....still no word of YOUR opinion or theory on GOD, cuz you're a pussy.

And that proves that no one can possibly know something you don't.

Can you tell me my birth name? After all, that is part of the information that travels at the speed of light.

I'm sorry - but there isn't a planets worth of people after your birth name, megalomaniac.

Gods existence or non the other hand is a little more relevant than a pissant such as yourself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Liar.
________________________________

Constructive/Intuitionistic logic 101

Neither organic logic nor any additional/alternative forms of logic are philosophy, in and of themselves. They're tools used by scientists, philosophers, theologians, engineers, mathematicians, linguists. . . . The fundamental nature of philosophy is the indispensable business of metaphysical definition premised on the delineations of the organic principle of identity. Unlike the vast majority of system-building philosophies, What is it? can be objectively and universally weighed, tested or falsified as it most immediately goes to conceptualization and linguistics. As for as system-building philosophies go . . . if it's not directly based on natural law as delineated by the principle of identity and affirmed by scripture: I've got no use for it.

What you have failed to share with the others, QW, is that the identity of constructive logic is an artificial analytic tool predicated on the organic principle of identity, as any other form of logic must necessarily be, that merely precludes double negation elimination and the law of the excluded middle from its set of axioms.

Ultimately, it's a microcosmic, alternate-world model of logic within the macrocosmic real-world model of organic logic. Notwithstanding, it's a very useful tool as it provides a means of evaluating propositions in terms of direct evidence about the real world. Also, in alternate-word mathematics, especially, this model serves to amplify organic logic's power in very much the same way that various technologies amplify our senses. It also provides alternate ways of looking at the real world that may divulge new possibilities, albeit, from negative perspectives that go back to real-world positives.

The foundational law of the principle of identity, the discrete law of identity as considered separately from its elaborations, and the law of contradiction still operate. It cannot be otherwise. But instances of excluded middles or double negation eliminations cannot be generally demonstrated, only discretely demonstrated on a case by case basis.

In organic logic, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA), for example, is assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof: it cannot be falsified, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes it to be true. God exists! The principle of identity, the foundation of knowledge, universally applies! For its logical proof is unassailable.

(Now, of course, GT and QW are still making the same unremarkable point as Jake that this does not mean that this contention is ultimately true. HELLO! AFTER FOURTEEN-HUNDRED posts. . . . In alternate-world forms of logic is the MPTA necessarily true logically or axiomatically? HELLO! AFTER FOURTEEN-HUNDRED posts. . . .

NO. IT"S NOT!

It’s regarded to be unproved. I KNOW THIS.

But don't lose sight of the fact that this observation is the ultimate counterargument that still proves the MPTA to be true in the real world of organic logic.)

Note that nothing since that last personal opinion is in red. As for those who subscribe to metaphysical anti-realism, that all is an illusion, that all logic is relative, which is not true, by the way, in organic or alternate forms of logic, as we shall see, that, therefore, nothing can be said to be objective knowledge . . . you win. I surrender. We necessarily presuppose certain things: We exist, the cosmos exists and a transcendent realm of being may exist. Fine. I mean, you know, yawn, but fine. Carry on. . . .

As for the rest of you, read on. . . .

In constructive logic the MPTA (in spite of the fact that it is logically true, academically, under the terms of classical logic) cannot be assigned a truth value in terms of ultimacy because the substance of its Object does not assert any direct material evidence, only inferential evidence, namely, the cosmological order, and the inferentially apparent synchronization of our minds with the cosmological order's properties and mechanisms (more on this vital distinction below).

In other words, we've all been talking about the MPTA in terms of ultimacy, on the terms of constructive logic, all along, most of you unawares.
Instead, the MPTA would be assigned an unknown truth value, as it's not inhabited by a proof of direct evidence. It would be regarded as being valid, though not in the same sense as in organic logic, until it was disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction, and since no contradiction can be deduced about it, it remains something that is unproven or unfalsifiable in constructive logic. This is merely the same thing as saying that currently transcendental propositions are not subject to scientific falsification.

That's nothing new!

In other words, the MPTA cannot be falsified in either of the respective worlds of logic, but for different reasons.

As I said before, because the principle of identity, which is the basis of the MPTA, is organic, one can never escape it or opt out of it. In fact, even in doing constructive logic, one is never actually not aware of the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination. We simply enter into a world of logic where those aspects of organic logic are not presupposed to be axioms. That's all.

An analogy that assumes God's existence in terms of ultimacy for the sake of illustration:
From this side of heaven, under the rules of organic logic, God exists! That is, He exists . . . logically. The truth value or logical validity of the MPTA is objectively and independently affirmed by any counterargument.

But under the rules of constructive logic/mathematics, God might or might not exist. The proposition is unprovable, but only because constructive logic requires direct evidence, i.e., the inferential evidence of established theory in science, which, by the way, is still a tricky business as certain "established theories" are arguably premised on metaphysical naturalism.

(This demonstrates why QW's thinking that science precedes philosophy is foolishness. With all due respect, it’s his notion that's “philosophical bullshit.”)

Any proposition can be considered within the world of constructive logic, but not all propositions can be assigned a truth value. Constructive logic cannot consider inferential, empirical evidence about something metaphysical . . . unless constructive logic is being applied by someone who is "standing" in the metaphysical realm of being. Theoretically, an observer beyond this mortal coil could safely assert that God exists under the rules of both organic and constructive logic, as he would be in the realm of direct evidence, not partially or wholly stuck in the inferentially evidential realm of being asserting a logical "truth" of pure reason based on the existence of the cosmological order.

And those of us who believe our being is in Christ Jesus, just like Boss is talking about, can and do assign a truth value to God's existence on the terms of constructive logic as persons who believe they are standing in the metaphysical realm of being, though still tied to this mortal coil via our physical bodies, with direct evidence and a testimony to go with it. We just can't make others experience that evidence directly and, therefore, cannot assert the rules of constructive logic in any universally objective or scientific way. Others have to open up their minds and say yes to God in order to experience this reality directly.

Can I get a witness, brothers and sisters?

In short, QW has never really been alluding to anything that constitutes a game changer as far as the principle of identity is concerned. He's simply making the very same rather unremarkable observation that all of us with an IQ above that of a gnat have made all along: the existence of God, beyond the rules of logic and evidence of the organic principle of identity, is not demonstrable/provable in terms of ultimacy, as those proofs for God's existence are based on inferential evidence, not direct evidence, in spite of the fact that the cosmological order does constitute direct evidence for God’s existence under the terms of organic logic.

As for the vitally important distinction: the organic laws of logic (comprehensively, the principle of identity) evince two distinct levels of being.

One of them is scientifically falsifiable: the laws of human apprehension/thought are intrinsically organic, universally hardwired, at the very least, in our brains by nature. Most scientists and philosophers hold this to be true with plenty of scientific evidence. This is not merely intuitively true. Hence, in constructive logic this would be assigned a truth value.

The other is a theological proposition: the laws of human apprehension/thought are ultimately grounded in God. God is the universal Principle of Identity on Whom the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (RFLCHC) are contingent. Ultimately, this is the reason for the apparent synchronization of the RFLCHC with the rest of the cosmological order. This proposition, of course, would only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic until disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

Hey, Justin, allow me to make a suggestion. Paragraphs. Now you may know this and maybe this is just the way you want to do. It's just hard to read. No slight intended. Just saying, just in case. Start a paragraph with an idea that introduces a specific point or related points. Last sentence: summary/conclusion/end of idea. It's not an exact science, but practice makes perfect. Don't have to get it right, just close. See suggested divisions.

By the way, Foxfryer is good people.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Mmm Kay, neat post

What do you mean? You admitted the five things are true. I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another. Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that. You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5. So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them. You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying. That's just another lie. But you're right about Q.W.. Now he's the chief liar. He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......

I haven't lied about a damn thing.

His five whatever the fucks - don't prove god.

I am agnostic.

And tags first premise is empty.

The five whatever the fucks don't matter, to any of that. So uh, yea. Go bark up someone else's tree about being a liar asshole.

Lying to the trees now I see. Did you forget that I agree that God's existence cannot be proven in any ultimate sense by arguments or science? So what's your point? Seriously? What's your point? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You don't have one. So why are you tapping lies out over and over again about something we all know as if we didn't know it. You're a broken record. Are you stuck on brain freeze. What do the things you necessarily must believe to get up every morning tell you about the meaning of life? Got nothing, eh? How boring. You've got huge ideas in front you with huge implications and your conclusion is to lie to yourself. "Just is" "Just was." "My dog farted." "Where are my shoes?" What's Q.W.'s point when he lies about logic and science? What's his point? All that nutcase is saying in the end is that science can't address questions of ultimate importance, the existence of God. Whoop de do! la la la la. That's supposed to be something new? I can get more out of my piggy bank than that. Dogmatism, he says. Is that a song title for dull? Logic can prove anything, he says, expect his lies and the lies he tells to cover up those lies and the lies after that. Foxfrye's talking about persuading people. Persuade Liars? What kind of dummy tries to persuade liars? What's the point of Prachettford lying about definitions? That was a hoot. What did that liar get out of this thread? Reinforced lies that's what he got. Somebody just repeated one of Q.W.'s lies, one that reinforces disbelief . Q.W. should be proud, and Foxfyre encouraged that liar blindingly leading others to think he's open-minded, being straight, helping. But everything that comes out of his mouth was self-serving, false, faith-destroying lies. I'm the weirdo? You guys just sit around and lie to each other, pretend like ho hum ideas are big ideas.

Thou shalt not have an infinite God of unlimited possibilities.
Thou shalt not venture beyond just is.
Thou shalt go in circles forever about yawn.
Thou shalt have objective evidence, whatever that is.
Thou shalt not have any definition: objective evidence is objective evidence.
Thou shalt not have a universal principle of identity.
Thou shalt not have coherence in laws of thought with things that are two or more things at the same time.
Thou shalt split the nature of thy given thing and make it two different things. LOL!
Thou shalt talk gibberish about things one knows really nothing about.
Thou shalt lie like the devil, freely, happily and about everything.
Thou shalt not have the excluded middle in constructive logic. (So? And?)
Thou shalt not have any coherent So? or And? LOL!
Thou does not have a clue about So? or And?
Thou shalt not have a principle of identity, but a law of identity as thy proper term, except when, sometimes, well, what's the deal?
Thou shalt not have a universal synchronization of apprehension and phenomena; i.e., thou shalt not have science. LOL!
Thou shalt not have philosophy before science; i.e., thou shalt not have science. LOL!
Thou shalt not have an open mind.
Thou shalt not have green eggs and ham.

Did I miss anything?

Oh!

Thou shalt not have a kitchen sink.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

.
can an agnostic be admitted to the Everlasting without achieving the necessary answers for Admission while their Spirits physiology exists ? -

No, there is discovery for those willing to succeed.

.

 

[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.

And there's another liar lying to himself pretending he's not proving something that he just lied about. Seriously, you guys are in real need of a fresh face around here. How long have you guys been tapping out lies on this forum? I've never seen so many lies at once. Is this the liar's club?

And there's another liar lying to himself pretending he's not proving something that he just lied about.

.
that you are a biblicist ?

and for centuries nothing of value by your understandings has ( ever ) been accomplished ...

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry - but there isn't a planets worth of people after your birth name, megalomaniac.

Gods existence or non the other hand is a little more relevant than a pissant such as yourself.

There isn't a planet's worth of people after evidence that god exist either, which sort of invalidates whatever point you think you made, and puts us back to your insistence that no one can know anything you don't.

I may be an idiot douchebag pissant, but at least I admit that I don't know everything.

 

[Boss]

I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.

Again proving how fucking dumb you are.

I argued that no human has proof.

I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.

Prove God to me ! Prove God to me! That's all I keep hearing from you morons! It's like you are completely unaware that no one will ever be able to "prove" anything to you when your mind is going to reject the evidence.

Since God is spiritual, the evidence that proves God is also spiritual. You reject the spiritual, so you can't evaluate the evidence. Now that's not the fault of the evidence or God, or any of us who know God. We can't make spiritual evidence turn into physical evidence you'll accept. We can't turn God into a physical entity so we can prove God exists to you. So what do you want us to do?

The only thing I can recommend is this... Turn your life over to God, believe in the power of God, pray to God and worship Him daily, ask for God's blessings and forgiveness. Devote yourself to following God and God's Word for the next 90 days. I guarantee you will find evidence for God. That's all I can tell you, if you want to find proof for God, that's what you need to do.

There is never going to be any physical evidence we can show you that will prove God to you. We've told you this, we've explained why that is, but you just keep ignorantly asking for the same thing over and over. It goes on for days, weeks, months... thousands and thousands of pages worth of yah-yah back and forth in multiple threads on multiple forums. You're not willing to accept the evidence or do what it takes to see the evidence for yourself, so there's nothing anyone can do.

God exists. Billions of people believe it and have all the evidence they need. You don't believe it because you refuse to accept the evidence or acknowledge it in any way. No one can help you but you.

 

[Hollie]

I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.

Again proving how fucking dumb you are.

I argued that no human has proof.

I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.

Prove God to me ! Prove God to me! That's all I keep hearing from you morons! It's like you are completely unaware that no one will ever be able to "prove" anything to you when your mind is going to reject the evidence.

Since God is spiritual, the evidence that proves God is also spiritual. You reject the spiritual, so you can't evaluate the evidence. Now that's not the fault of the evidence or God, or any of us who know God. We can't make spiritual evidence turn into physical evidence you'll accept. We can't turn God into a physical entity so we can prove God exists to you. So what do you want us to do?

The only thing I can recommend is this... Turn your life over to God, believe in the power of God, pray to God and worship Him daily, ask for God's blessings and forgiveness. Devote yourself to following God and God's Word for the next 90 days. I guarantee you will find evidence for God. That's all I can tell you, if you want to find proof for God, that's what you need to do.

There is never going to be any physical evidence we can show you that will prove God to you. We've told you this, we've explained why that is, but you just keep ignorantly asking for the same thing over and over. It goes on for days, weeks, months... thousands and thousands of pages worth of yah-yah back and forth in multiple threads on multiple forums. You're not willing to accept the evidence or do what it takes to see the evidence for yourself, so there's nothing anyone can do.

God exists. Billions of people believe it and have all the evidence they need. You don't believe it because you refuse to accept the evidence or acknowledge it in any way. No one can help you but you.

Why do you religious extremists insist on presuming that others will accept your pointless arguments with such quackery as:

"a lot of people believe it so it must be true", and the standard bearer of religious fundies: ".... because I say so".

 

[G.T.]

Boss' dumbass argument about ppl not willing to accept evidence is so childish. Ugh. Its a cop out of the most extreme kind.

 

[G.T.]

I'm sorry - but there isn't a planets worth of people after your birth name, megalomaniac.

Gods existence or non the other hand is a little more relevant than a pissant such as yourself.

There isn't a planet's worth of people after evidence that god exist either, which sort of invalidates whatever point you think you made, and puts us back to your insistence that no one can know anything you don't.

I may be an idiot douchebag pissant, but at least I admit that I don't know everything.

No, you're in fact the ONLY person in here who has a problem admitting you don't know everything.

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

 

[Boss]

Boss' dumbass argument about ppl not willing to accept evidence is so childish. Ugh. Its a cop out of the most extreme kind.

There is no cop out and its not childish, just stating a fact of the matter. I can show you the spiritual evidence but if you think spiritual evidence is anecdotal, I can't do anything about that. The prosecutor in the OJ trial showed the jury the evidence, they didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor so they found him not guilty.

GT, let me pose a question here for you. I notice in your avatar a little girl. I assume this may be your daughter. Let's assume your daughter becomes very ill. You take her to the hospital where she is admitted for tests. After a few days, her condition is worsening and doctors are puzzled as to what the problem is. She continues to decline and is near death, but the doctors still have no idea what to do or what is wrong. They basically tell you that short of a miracle, she will die in the next 24 hours. Faced with this, are you going to hit your knees in the chapel and ask God to save your daughter, or stick rigidly to your disbelief in God?

You know, I have friends who are flaming gays, bleeding heart liberals, and outspoken Atheists. I know I come across as a real disagreeable asshole here, but in my personal life and relationships, I get along with people very well, even if our views are extremely different. That said, I am amazed at how many times I will see someone on my Facebook who has been absolutely brutal and disrespectful toward religion and religious beliefs, actually ask for their friends to "pray for" someone in their family in a time of need. Or they are holding a "candlelight vigil" for someone... I'm almost tempted to say... I thought you were an Atheist who didn't believe in God?

It's just amazing to me how many people claim they don't believe in God until they are faced with some kind of crisis. What's the old saying... there are no Atheists in foxholes?

 

[Boss]

I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.

Again proving how fucking dumb you are.

I argued that no human has proof.

I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.

Prove God to me ! Prove God to me! That's all I keep hearing from you morons! It's like you are completely unaware that no one will ever be able to "prove" anything to you when your mind is going to reject the evidence.

Since God is spiritual, the evidence that proves God is also spiritual. You reject the spiritual, so you can't evaluate the evidence. Now that's not the fault of the evidence or God, or any of us who know God. We can't make spiritual evidence turn into physical evidence you'll accept. We can't turn God into a physical entity so we can prove God exists to you. So what do you want us to do?

The only thing I can recommend is this... Turn your life over to God, believe in the power of God, pray to God and worship Him daily, ask for God's blessings and forgiveness. Devote yourself to following God and God's Word for the next 90 days. I guarantee you will find evidence for God. That's all I can tell you, if you want to find proof for God, that's what you need to do.

There is never going to be any physical evidence we can show you that will prove God to you. We've told you this, we've explained why that is, but you just keep ignorantly asking for the same thing over and over. It goes on for days, weeks, months... thousands and thousands of pages worth of yah-yah back and forth in multiple threads on multiple forums. You're not willing to accept the evidence or do what it takes to see the evidence for yourself, so there's nothing anyone can do.

God exists. Billions of people believe it and have all the evidence they need. You don't believe it because you refuse to accept the evidence or acknowledge it in any way. No one can help you but you.

Why do you religious extremists insist on presuming that others will accept your pointless arguments with such quackery as:

"a lot of people believe it so it must be true", and the standard bearer of religious fundies: ".... because I say so".

We've already demonstrated how your argument is always "because I say so." Yet, I've seen not one person in this thread present that as an argument for God. I've never said "a lot of people believe it so it must be true." That is a mischaracterization of what was said. You do this because you're dishonest.

95% of our species does not have a behavioral attribute that is irrational, illogical, and without fundamental purpose. That defies reason, biology and science in general. So I can't let that argument stand when it's tossed out there. It's not about beliefs, it's about behavioral attributes of living things.

And I guess part of you being a dishonest person is why you continue to label me as a "religious extremist" in thread after thread, despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you that I am not a Christian and don't follow religion. Maybe you think of that as a "dig" that will get under my skin, but it doesn't bother me in the least, it just confirms to me what a totally dishonest person you are.

 

[G.T.]

Boss Its not my view that your evidence is anecdotal, its that your evidence meets the literal definition of anecdotal.

Same with the situation you described with my daughter. If that had occurred, a scientific mind - a sound & reasonable mind- wouldn't automatically attribute the miracle to any particular god or entity at all. That mind would hunt for the reason or explanation for the miracle and absent finding one in an incontrovertible way? The answer is a shoulder shrug and 'I don't know.'

I already posted also why the appeal to majority you've used doesn't work, and you skipped right over that, so you can address Post #1465 before you continue the charade. 'Its true' is not the only plausible explanation for humans acting spiritually en masse. An open mind sees many other possibilities. It is the closed mind that says 'well! Must be true, then!'

No, there's plenty of other reasons.

The reason I'm being disagreeable with you or anyone at all, and the reason I've EVER been..........is its based on reciprocation. I never begin being the asshole. I'm cordial to anyone who is cordial. Its kinda natural. Its also natural to be a dick to dicks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Boss' dumbass argument about ppl not willing to accept evidence is so childish. Ugh. Its a cop out of the most extreme kind.

There is no cop out and its not childish, just stating a fact of the matter. I can show you the spiritual evidence but if you think spiritual evidence is anecdotal, I can't do anything about that. The prosecutor in the OJ trial showed the jury the evidence, they didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor so they found him not guilty.

GT, let me pose a question here for you. I notice in your avatar a little girl. I assume this may be your daughter. Let's assume your daughter becomes very ill. You take her to the hospital where she is admitted for tests. After a few days, her condition is worsening and doctors are puzzled as to what the problem is. She continues to decline and is near death, but the doctors still have no idea what to do or what is wrong. They basically tell you that short of a miracle, she will die in the next 24 hours. Faced with this, are you going to hit your knees in the chapel and ask God to save your daughter, or stick rigidly to your disbelief in God?

You know, I have friends who are flaming gays, bleeding heart liberals, and outspoken Atheists. I know I come across as a real disagreeable asshole here, but in my personal life and relationships, I get along with people very well, even if our views are extremely different. That said, I am amazed at how many times I will see someone on my Facebook who has been absolutely brutal and disrespectful toward religion and religious beliefs, actually ask for their friends to "pray for" someone in their family in a time of need. Or they are holding a "candlelight vigil" for someone... I'm almost tempted to say... I thought you were an Atheist who didn't believe in God?

It's just amazing to me how many people claim they don't believe in God until they are faced with some kind of crisis. What's the old saying... there are no Atheists in foxholes?

More anecdotal hogwash!

 

[Boss]

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that... or... maybe you're right, I don't know. Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.