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

[sealybobo]

Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life. I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from. Do you?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?

We don't know. Are you saying god planted his seed? Is that your final answer? Because that is plain old ignorant. Does Zeus still create lightening in your mind?

 

[Hollie]

Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life. I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from. Do you?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?

The gawds created meteors to chase away jinn.

Everyone knows that.


“And (the Jinn who had listened to the Qur'an said): We had sought the heaven but had found it filled with strong warders and meteors.
Koran 72:8

You just need some new gawds.

 

[sealybobo]

Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life. I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from. Do you?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?

Number 21

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch).

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan

“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Why there is no god

 

[Quantum Windbag]

actually, i asked you your theory on origins and you responded by saying you dont tell the boards that cuz youre afraid that nobody is smart enough to understand it

do i need to quote you?

douchebag

What I said is you wouldn't understand the math, and the question you asked was not about origins. Feel free to quote it to prove yourself wrong, if you really feel the need.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me say this another way. You attacked him with lies. You attacked the credibility of what Rawlings said, his reputation when all he was talking about are objective, academic things that anyone can check out. Foxfrye obviously doesn't bother to do that kind of thing and blames those who do check things ouot for your disgraceful behavior. She's an idiot. You presented personal opinions as absolute facts to make yourself look smarter and to sneer. I saw your game. You fooled me at first and fooled gullible nanny Foxfyre, but you don’t fool me anymore. And it was all lies. Stupid lies. Illogical lies. Factual lies. I studied up on constructive logic to check you out as you were obviously lying about classical logic as Rawlings clearly showed. He didn't attack you the way you mean, liar. He called you out for what you are and proved it every time, liar.

Here’s another stupid thing you said while trying to make Rawlings look like he was wrong on something when he wasn‘t. You said that science, philosophy and logic can’t define dark matter and dark energy. No cokadoodledoodo, retard. These things don’t define anything and never have. But that’s not the way you meant that. You were trying to say that logic doesn’t hold up universally, which is a hogwash lie. You have no proof, that's your opinion. How stupid is that? That’s what happens when liars lie to change what’s true. We define things using these mediums of knowledge and logic is just a tool we use to define things in these mediums. How stupid is it to talk about things as if they were persons. See how liars confuse themselves? No one has to attack you to show what a liar you are, just point out the stupid things you say when you’re lying about what others are saying so you can look superior.

I did not, but feel free to keep lying to yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you show me your bible as evidence, it has flaws.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There you go assuming you are intelligent again.

Can you point out to me anywhere in that post where I said the Bible is evidence?

Didn't think so, which makes your entire post a straw man argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

Why there is no god

Yet there is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So? Something from nothing at some point? Or was their god always until he made the universe then he gets swallowed up by the universe? Does the universe end up dying in the end? Whatever. What's that got to do with the two options, material or immaterial, or that the highest conceivable idea would be eternal? Once again, you're not making any sense. Looks like I win.

Believe it or not, I am not here to teach you, I am here to mock you. If you want to learn read it for yourself, or, if you can't read, find someone else to tell you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Okay. It's not my place to tell you what to say. I'm afraid to cross you. LOL! Just kidding. I just wanted to let you know she means well. She just wasn't thinking things through or realizing what QW was doing. But I take your point. I too was rankled by the notion that defending my posts against his lies constituted a sin on my part when it's he who is intentionally lying, for we were well past the point of it being mere ignorance. But just keep in mind that she never really understood what QW was actually doing. If it weren't premeditated I wouldn't be on his case. She was thinking that he might be right, not realizing that he wasn't. You and I know he was lying the whole time. She just wasn't comparing the things I was actually writing against the things he claimed I was writing because she closed her mind off to my posts.

That's what you get when you only listen to one side of the story. Junk. Just like she never bothered with the other side of the story about free will. She still really has no clue as to the problems you were trying to tell her about.

It just never occurred to QW's arrogant ass that he was dealing with someone who actually knows the various forms of logic for realies, not pretendies, someone who doesn't need links and quotes off the Internet to make his case because it's already in his head, once again, for realies, not pretendies. LOL!

 

[dblack]

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.

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.

We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "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."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

They are liars. It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding. Even Q.W. is a liar. He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic. The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.

There you o again.

I challenge you to show me one time that I ever said anything about intuitionistic logic related to god. Just because I have not used intuitionistic logic to discuss god does not mean I don't understand it. If you look back you will see that the only thing I have done is point out to the dogmatists that classical logic is not universal. Since I have done that they have attacked me and accused me of saying things I have not said.

Get the fuck off your high horse, I have been studying this issue for longer than you and Rawlings combined, I know what I am saying, and am very careful to make sure that nothing I say is open to a challenge form anyone but an unthinking idiot.

Why are you asking him to show what has already been shown to you? Here ya go.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9960056/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954159/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954171/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954248/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954332/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9948790/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9948620/

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

On the Universal Principle of Identity I

This is addressed to Fox, Justin, but you might as well read it as it pertains to what ol' QW would have us not think about, and apparently Fox doesn't want to think about it either. Her post, however, is illustrative. It's not hard, just requires some background, so I'll break it up into different parts.

I have only argued that there is more than one way to look at the existence and attributes of God, how he works in the world, free will, and the scriptures that bear testimony to him, and also that arguments that oppose yours can be just as logical as yours are.

I don't dispute any of that except what's in bold. That is a bald assertion, an empirically verifiable assertion that you have not demonstrated. And because you can't imagine how that could possibly be false and because I refuse to take your word on it sans any said demonstration, you assume to know something I don't. You assume that I am being closed-minded and dogmatic.

Are you sure that's true, given the fact of the inherent logical problem with your statement pointed out by Justin?

What precisely are these arguments that are just as logically valid as the view of historical orthodoxy?

The fact of the matter is that all of the variously tweaked arguments are variations on three solutions. Two of them are asserted within the realm of your paradigm. Your solution is the diminution of divine omniscience based on the assumption that the coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is, otherwise, an irresolvable paradox, which merely begs the question as it disregards the ramifications of the principle of identity.

There is no question that QW has mangled the facts of logic on this thread, initially out of ignorance, while setting himself up as one who is an authority on logic. He is no such thing. He's a fraud. And his responses to correction in which he habitually claims that I do not understand or accept the conventions of alternate forms of logic, or that alternate forms of logic overturn anything I've shared on this thread are not only false, but evince that he is consciously lying, deliberatively and shamelessly. Justin understands classical and constructive logic better than he, and Justin is just learning the latter.

You have decided that Justin and I are out of line for calling him out on this, but that is merely you closing your mind to the reality of the situation.

Apparently you missed the several posts written by me wherein I disregarded QW's sneering arrogance and did not respond in kind . . . at first. Apparently you missed Justin's conciliatory note regarding the essence of QW's misapprehension of the law of the excluded middle. Apparently you missed the fact that QW avoided my post on constructive logic and continued to imply that I was ignorant of the facts.


I have been formulating mathematical proofs in constructive logic for years. No one who understood the conventions of constructive logic, let alone the conventions of logic in general, at the level he implies to operate at, while never once demonstrating anything of the kind, mind you, would spout his sophomorically inane tripe. There's no way in hell his tripe about the principle of identity, for example, could be true.

All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:

Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.


A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.​

That does not violate any of the laws of thought! If it did, given the fact that the laws of thought are hardwired and hold universally for all sound, developmentally mature minds, we wouldn't be able to do expressive set logic regarding complex entities of single predicates, including concepts like infinity, eternity, absoluteness, perfection, universality and so on. . . . We obviously do apprehend and define these concepts metaphysically and semantically without breaking a sweat.

And the alternate rules for axioms in artificial, alternate-world forms of logic (which are still contingent on real-world, organic logic) do not undermine this universal principle of identity in any way, shape or form.


Any given A may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously holds true in constructive logic too: it remains an incontrovertible proposition assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof. The fact of the suspension of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms in construct logic are utterly irrelevant. Those axioms in classical logic are the analytical proofs for the universal principle, and in constructive logic, instances of violations of the excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be demonstrated discretely on a case-by-case basis. This universal principle of identity is analytically affirmed by these in constructive logic too.

QW is an idiot and a liar pretending to understand things he does not.

But allow me to make his error abundantly clear as promised earlier.

Let's take the now proverbial Lying QW example of the Majorana particle, which is a discrete subatomic particle that is both matter and antimatter simultaneously; i.e., the Majorana fermion is it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously. Now according to Mr. Logic this existent violates the organic/classical law of the excluded middle: For all A: A OR ~A, which means that any given proposition/entity must be either its positive or negative form, or everything must either be or not be.

To get the gist of this law, we must understand the gist of the others first. The law of identity states that A = A, which means that whatever a thing is, it is. The law of contradiction states that NOT (A = NOT-A), which means that any given proposition/entity cannot be what it is and not what it is; in other words, two things that are diametrically opposed by nature or merely different by nature cannot be the same thing at the same time.

Finally, there cannot be an intermediate between contradictions or a third possibility between contradictions.

Mr. Logic's problem is that he imagines that because the Majorana fermion is it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously, it constitutes a third or intermediate form of cosmological material. But of course we don't cut a dog in half, for example, and say that the original whole was never a dog simply because it's now two parts of a dead dog: the front half (A) and the back half (B), which, as separated, are two different things, neither of which is a dog.

When we define the metaphysical being of any given A or discrete existent, we don't ask What are it?, but What is it? We don't split a single existent into two parts or "split the predicate" and imagine that we're still talking about the same whole.

The Majorana fermion is, not are, it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously, or the Majorana fermion is, not are, both matter and antimatter simultaneously: A = A = whatever a thing is, it is.

Let X = matter; let Y = antimatter; let M = the Majorana fermion.

A: A = A = M = {Y and Y simultaneously}.​

That is the whole of the The Majorana fermion. The Majorana fermion is never just matter or never just antimatter; it's never just its own matter or just its own antimatter. It's always its own matter and antimatter simultaneously.


What is infinity in terms of numbers or existents?

Let I = Infinity.

A: A = A = I = {all the numbers there are simultaneously} or = {all existents or potential existents simultaneously}.​

The organic/classical laws of logic are not violated by any of these things.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

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.

We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "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."

I exist.

Cosmological order = The other things that exist.

Transcendent ground of origin = The idea of God exists (immaterial origin as opposed to material origin).

Absolutely unparalleled state of perfection = God by the definition, the greatest thing that exists.

Same ideas you have, whether you believe them to be imaginary or not.

 

[Justin Davis]

So? Something from nothing at some point? Or was their god always until he made the universe then he gets swallowed up by the universe? Does the universe end up dying in the end? Whatever. What's that got to do with the two options, material or immaterial, or that the highest conceivable idea would be eternal? Once again, you're not making any sense. Looks like I win.

Believe it or not, I am not here to teach you, I am here to mock you. If you want to learn read it for yourself, or, if you can't read, find someone else to tell you.

You lost me on the excluded middle, but if you have something to say, just say it. I decide if it's worthy of value. I don't do esoteric, Gnosticism, which is all I've gotten form you so far as you express your opinions as objectively discernible absolutes without the objective part.

 

[Justin Davis]

Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life. I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from. Do you?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?

We don't know. Are you saying god planted his seed? Is that your final answer? Because that is plain old ignorant. Does Zeus still create lightening in your mind?

You don't know. Are you saying you planted His seed? It that your final answer? That's plain crazy. Is Zeus your god?

 

[Justin Davis]

Well, you come back around to my point. The 'self' exists "only in your mind". Does that mean it isn't real? My own view is that gods, if they do exist as distinct entities, are something like distributed minds, populating the brains of believers.

If that's true then we're in the same boat of "distributed minds" because we all have an idea(s) of God in our minds, especially those who think their God.

 

[dblack]

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.

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.

We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "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."

I exist.

Cosmological order = The other things that exist.

Transcendent ground of origin = The idea of God exists (immaterial origin as opposed to material origin).

Absolutely unparalleled state of perfection = God by the definition, the greatest thing that exists.

Same ideas you have, whether you believe them to be imaginary or not.

Well, no, they're not. It sounds like, if I may infer, that when you say 'transcendent ground of origin', what you really mean is the suggestion that a god created the universe - which really isn't the same thing as "the idea of God exists". Anyway, transcendent doesn't mean much to me, other than an oblique reference to supernatural, which I've never been able to make any sense of. A thing is either real, or it is not.

 

[sealybobo]

Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life. I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from. Do you?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?

We don't know. Are you saying god planted his seed? Is that your final answer? Because that is plain old ignorant. Does Zeus still create lightening in your mind?

You don't know. Are you saying you planted His seed? It that your final answer? That's plain crazy. Is Zeus your god?

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

 

[sealybobo]

hu·mil·i·ty a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

And what are your original ideas exactly?

Your more often than not inscrutable or incoherent ideas? Ideas like how logic at the human level defines things as if it were human sentience itself, science precedes philosophy, the Majorana particle violates the law of the excluded middle, the principle of identity, which ultimately encompasses the construct of infinity, is not the comprehensive principle above the three laws of thought, alternate forms of logic or not contingent on the organic/classical laws of thought, constructive logic invalidates the principle/law of identity or invalidates the law contradiction, the suspension of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms means that these are invalided by the rules of constructive logic, any number of the things I asserted are invalided by alternate forms of logic?. . . . I could go on.

Yeah. All of those ideas of yours are original alright. They're all wrong as hell and irrational, but they're original. That's for sure.

Tells us Mr. Original Thought, if nothing I've shared here is new to you than how did you manage to mangle the distinction between epistemological subjectivism and the absolute principle of identity from my posts? You know, before you said you didn't when your error finally dawned on you, when the ramifications finally sunk in? You obviously had no clue where that was going at all. LOL!

Remember when you refused to imagine there was anyway in hell absolute omniscience and actual free will could coexist without contradiction? You thought that contention was solely based on the construct of the eternal now. Wrong. LOL!

And remember your error, Mr. Reader of Hebrew, regarding the nature of the conditional and final decrees of the semantic construct of it repented in scripture.

I could go on. . . .

The reason why my ideas alluded you, and not just the ones I listed but several more, are in the cannon of the greatest ideas is because they have withstood the test of time, liar, unlike your ideas that are in fact not origin, but have been repeated by idiots throughout history.