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

[Justin Davis]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

True. Existence is the evidence for God. We have logical proofs for God's existence based on that evidence for all over the place. But these proofs are not proofs in the ultimate sense, because their based on inferential evidence, not direct evidence. That’s all. But there's plenty of reason to believe He exists. But what God? That's the next question. The logically straightforward, simplest solution is that God is the supremely unparalleled being or He's not god. Where you go from there gets into divine revelation, right? It seems like God would have to reveal Himself in some direct way after that.

 

[Justin Davis]

Why can't science see what created us? Why can't we figure it out? Is this "creator" intelligent? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that. We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical. Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue. Right? You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't. Right?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

I agree with that. I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense. Maybe I didn't say it right. The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea. Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?

Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.

Right. But also once you say "I exist" you realize that I didn't create myself so who or what did? We also see immediately that either the apparent material world did or something immaterial did. That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

If that's all you guys mean by god then ok fine. We see no evidence of a creator but it is certainly possible. Does it matter if we believe?

It's when you start telling us that god came and talked to your ancestors and said if anyone from here on out doesn't believe they go to hell that we start having problems.

No evidence for God? Are you crazy? If there's no evidence for God then why to you keep talking about God. You have no idea how silly you are as you tell others to shut up with lies.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

Prolly not. But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.

It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.

Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.

Strange, that.

What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."

Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).

That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok. As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof." But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.

Sigh.

Proofs for God's existence based on the evidence of the existence of the universe itself absolutely do exist and they are absolutely, justifiably true under the rules of organic/classical logic. You don't know what you’re talking about. This fact has already been established on this thread by people who know what they're talking about.

These proofs are simply not proofs under the rules of science. That’s all, because science can only deal with direct evidence from which only empirical theories can be inferred.

Why do people keep inserting subjective opinions into the equation and confuse what is an objective and simple matter? You're coming onto this thread late in the game repeating things that have already been falsified.

Um, sorry, but the universe existing in no way suggests your gods or any other gods are responsible. Cutting and pasting meaningless terms such as "organic logic" makes you appear as be trying way, way to hard.

You lie. Liars, liars everywhere.

 

[Justin Davis]

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

I agree.

 

[Hollie]

"Prolly not is wrong." Don't let that guy fool ya. His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread. The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.

So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.

Strange, that.

What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."

Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).

That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok. As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof." But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.

Sigh.

Proofs for God's existence based on the evidence of the existence of the universe itself absolutely do exist and they are absolutely, justifiably true under the rules of organic/classical logic. You don't know what you’re talking about. This fact has already been established on this thread by people who know what they're talking about.

These proofs are simply not proofs under the rules of science. That’s all, because science can only deal with direct evidence from which only empirical theories can be inferred.

Why do people keep inserting subjective opinions into the equation and confuse what is an objective and simple matter? You're coming onto this thread late in the game repeating things that have already been falsified.

Um, sorry, but the universe existing in no way suggests your gods or any other gods are responsible. Cutting and pasting meaningless terms such as "organic logic" makes you appear as be trying way, way to hard.

You lie. Liars, liars everywhere.

Yours are the rabid conspiracy theories that afflict religious zealots.

 

[dblack]

True. Existence is the evidence for God. We have logical proofs for God's existence based on that evidence for all over the place. But these proofs are not proofs in the ultimate sense, because their based on inferential evidence, not direct evidence. That’s all. But there's plenty of reason to believe He exists. But what God? That's the next question. The logically straightforward, simplest solution is that God is the supremely unparalleled being or He's not god. Where you go from there gets into divine revelation, right? It seems like God would have to reveal Himself in some direct way after that.

I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.

 

[Justin Davis]

True. Existence is the evidence for God. We have logical proofs for God's existence based on that evidence for all over the place. But these proofs are not proofs in the ultimate sense, because their based on inferential evidence, not direct evidence. That’s all. But there's plenty of reason to believe He exists. But what God? That's the next question. The logically straightforward, simplest solution is that God is the supremely unparalleled being or He's not god. Where you go from there gets into divine revelation, right? It seems like God would have to reveal Himself in some direct way after that.

I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.

I'm not assuming there's only one God. I'm saying, objectively, that whoever the ultimate God is, is. There is no religion in the world that does not place an ultimate universal principle or being at the top. Why? Because something has to be ultimate if origin is not material logically. Divine revelation? You said people experience divinity. Is that a form of revelation or are you saying it's just imagined? There's no reason to believe that a divinity that can make the cosmos directly can't reveal itself directly. What's an indirect entity?

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.

Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin. Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​

G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded. Hollie would have to concede these things. So would sealybobo. So does everybody. Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.

 

[Hollie]

I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.

Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin. Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​

G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded. Hollie would have to concede these things. So would sealybobo. So does everybody. Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.

Are you aware that it's presumptive of you to make judgements about what others have not conceded?

Check.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's in the Bible!

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

is that the christian / bible or a different one ? - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.

as is the presumption of the threads title.

.

What are you talking about? After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?

proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.

.

So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Science doesn't say anything. Science doesn't even do anything. We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical. sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham

Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP! LOL.

More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking." All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion. Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.

These scientists are not saying what you said. It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false. That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.

You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything. We say what science is and what it is not. We do science, science doesn't do itself. And we say what science demonstrates.

You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up. Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words. I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds. Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world. You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian. Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause. You are the one saying something that is false, not me.

But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true. Liars. Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute. No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny. I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds.

Dude. LOL! Get 'me!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Science doesn't say anything. Science doesn't even do anything. We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical. sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham

Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP! LOL.

Yep. Like Justin said, what we have here is a Lying QW. LOL!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't say there's no evidence.

You stay owning yourself.

I said there's no absolute proof.

Conflate them as synonymns all you want, troll.

You are one of those people. My apologies for overestimating your intelligence and grasp of the English language.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The bold portion of your post is another lie. You're the dogmatist. Your insinuation that your lies have not been exposed is another lie. R has completely exposed your crap. His post on constructive/intuitionistic logic exposes your lies for what they are. You're the idiot who doesn't even understand something as simple as the law of excluded middle.

You're a joke, a phony. And your foul language is just another example of the games you play when you lie.

I challenge you to stop lying. I challenge you to admit that you have intentionally lied about R's ideas and arguments and that you don't really understand intuitionistic logic.

I'm telling the truth about you as a person who has learned intuitionistic logic in order to follow R's arguments, not yours, that are based on both classical and intuitionistic logic, liar. You might be fooling others like you fooled me at first. But you don't fool me anymore.

You have implied and said things about intuitionistic logic that are false, couldn't be true in a millions years. I know intuitionistic logic better than you, and the idea that your lying mouth knows more about logic than R is a joke, the biggest lie you've told to date. You are a liar and hypocrite. You're pathetic. Get off your high horse and admit the truth.

Either link to the lies you claim have been exposed, or shut the fuck up.

Just to point out how absurd your position is, as far as I know Rawlings has no presented any original thoughts. Everything he states has been part of human debate for centuries. I will admit I usually skim his posts because I see no original thought in them, so I might have missed something, but nothing I said about his posts in any way address any of his ideas.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is disputing Q on that. That is not what the problem is. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I understand that and R understands what you wrote easily.

The problem is that Q is making specific claims about forms of logic and the laws of logic that are not true and can't be true. He also lies about what R has said about logic. Q does not understand the principle of identity in general, the law of excluded middle or constructive logic. The nature of the things he's saying especially after being shown that he couldn't possibly be right shows that he said stupid things that now he will not admit are wrong. And the way he evades what is actually being said shows that he knows he's lying, consciously and deliberately. He doesn't really believe what he's saying. He just won't admit that he's wrong.

The only thing he has said that's right about logic is things like what I put in bold and that constructive logic doesn't use laws of excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms. He thinks that means they don't still apply in constructive logic but they still do, just not as axioms. Also the principle of identity, the law of identity and the law of contradiction always apply in all forms of logic and it's the things that are necessarily true universally because of the principle of identity that R is talking about and nothing else. If Q understands constructive logic why doesn't he understand these things? He's liar, that's why. He knows he doesn't really know much about constructive logic. He wouldn't be saying these other things about logic if he did. He just thought from something googled that R was wrong. Q is googler, a quote monger on these things. Q just keeps implying things with links because he can't actually show the stupid things that he's imply negate R's posts. They do not. If you take a close look at his trash, you'll that he never really says anything that matters. He's an emperor without clothes, a con man.

Keep telling yourself that, kid. It probably makes you feel better about your attacks on me.

By the way, have you noticed that I have not once resorted to personal attacks, unlike both you and Rawlings?

 

[G.T.]

I didn't say there's no evidence.

You stay owning yourself.

I said there's no absolute proof.

Conflate them as synonymns all you want, troll.

You are one of those people. My apologies for overestimating your intelligence and grasp of the English language.

you didnt overestimate shit

you come into every room thinking youre the smawwtest guy of evaaaa

but really, everyone knows you're just a blowhard douchebag

congrats

 

[Justin Davis]

More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking." All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion. Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.

These scientists are not saying what you said. It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false. That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.

You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything. We say what science is and what it is not. We do science, science doesn't do itself. And we say what science demonstrates.

You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up. Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words. I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds. Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world. You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian. Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause. You are the one saying something that is false, not me.

But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true. Liars. Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute. No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny. I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds.

Dude. LOL! Get 'me!

Yeah. I know. I got mad. But this silliness has got to stop somewhere. I know you said that Foxfyre is good people and I suppose she is but I'm not putting up with her nanny lectures or being condescended to about my posts that tell people to stop lying about what I'm saying, attacking my reputation or like how QW attacked your reputation by intentionally pretending that you were wrong when you were obviously right and he's just lying and pretending to know something he doesn't. Screw that. That's on the liar, not me. QW is a liar and she's just turning a blind eye on his disgraceful behavior while nanny-nanny lecturing those whose reputations are being lied about. What in the world is wrong with her? She's a hypocrite and a fool.

And what's that silliness she wrote about how "there are logical arguments that are just as logical as yours or others"? I'm putting that in bold. Is that an absolute proclamation from her high horse that makes any sense at all? That's a lie! How can LOGICAL arguments asserting one thing be just as LOGICAL as other arguments that assert the opposite? She doesn't really believe that. That's a lie. And because I don't buy stupid things like that or some of the other stupid things she said like that, I'm closed minded, I'm dogmatic. What is she being when she says stupid things like that that she doesn't really believe can be true and closes her mind to a solution for free will that solves the problem, as her supposed solution solves one problem put creates a bunch of other problems that are even worse? How is that more logical than mine? What a fraud she is. The truth is that she got all emotional because I wouldn't accept her stupid idea that's not even logical or biblical. Boo hoo.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What are they? I'll tell you what they are. They are variations that all come down to these two options. There are no other options. That's it.

Not true, many cultures have a gods that are not eternal. You can get up on a high horse and claim that your god is the only possible god, but that puts you in a pretty tight bind.

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.

Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin. Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​

G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded. Hollie would have to concede these things. So would sealybobo. So does everybody. Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.

Are you aware that it's presumptive of you to make judgements about what others have not conceded?

Check.

Do you exist or not? Yes you exist. What's next? Why do people lie to themselves like this?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep. Like Justin said, what we have here is a Lying QW. LOL!

You might have a point, if I ever said anything you just quoted.