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

[Boss]

I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.

Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....



Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?

 

[G.T.]

"the five things the five things"




The five things don't prove god.

 

[Hollie]

I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.

Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....



Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?

Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been.

But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.

 

[Boss]

I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.

Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....



Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?

Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been.

But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.

Hey, what can I say, I try! Yes, it's bad when I've got the logical existentialists turning on me.
Hmm... "spirit realms of supermagical gods?" Doesn't ring a bell as coming from me. I know that you and some others seem to think that the universe created itself from nothing, that sounds pretty 'supermagical' to me. I do talk about spiritual nature, but it's not magical or full of imagined incarnations of various human-like deities. But you see, I understand what you are saying, if I didn't comprehend spiritual nature, I'd probably make the same dumb assumptions.

 

[G.T.]

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.

​

​

Finally found this stupid assed list of five, so I'll go through them one by one.

1. We exist, is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.

2. The cosmos exist, is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.

3. Atheism is not rational, CURRENTLY. Same with theism. I've said BOTH. Neither are rational, until there's considerable proof of one or the other - of which I have yet to see any.

4. An all knowing knower would necessarily know that they're all knowing is simply an axiom, and it's an axiom BECAUSE OF ITS DEFINITION, and THAT'S IT! This does not speak to whether or not AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER EVEN EXISTS. And the point was, A non all knowing knower NECESSARILY knows THAT THEY DON'T know everything, as well - - - - - meaning that the tag question "what do you know, and how do you know it?" is answered, you can ground all of your knowledge from THAT starting point: "I know I'm not all knowing." This is an axiom because of its definitions. This does not speak to whether or not a god exists, and does not prove that it's required, the baseless tag premise, that objective knowledge has its basis in a "mind" holding it together, necessarily. "It just is" is still just as plausible, in current human knowledge, and so the TAG cannot be used as PROOF of anything because EXISTS ARE OTHER EXPLANATIONS. You're taking LIBERTIES by ascribing it as you have in the TAG when OTHER (non disproven!!!!!!!!) EXPLANATIONS DO EXIST. Taking said liberties is dishonest, or misguided, or shortsighted, or LYING, or a combination of all of them.

5. I dont even know what the fuck this means, its bad english.










So, the more you bring up "but but but but but you agreed with the FIVE THINGS!!!! THE FIVE THINGS!!!!!!!!!" the more you waste my time and fail. They don't advance the proof for god, they dont advance the rationale for god. They're a meaningless numbered list that don't lead one one way or another if they're being absolutely (hee hee) objective.

 

[G.T.]

I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.

Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....



Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?

Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been.

But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.

Hey, what can I say, I try! Yes, it's bad when I've got the logical existentialists turning on me.
Hmm... "spirit realms of supermagical gods?" Doesn't ring a bell as coming from me. I know that you and some others seem to think that the universe created itself from nothing, that sounds pretty 'supermagical' to me. I do talk about spiritual nature, but it's not magical or full of imagined incarnations of various human-like deities. But you see, I understand what you are saying, if I didn't comprehend spiritual nature, I'd probably make the same dumb assumptions.

Hopefully, the some others isn't referring to me homey.

 

[Hollie]

"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!"

Actually, it does. A set is not an element of itself. (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!

You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as aspects of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god. Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person. In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.

However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.

Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.

OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.

"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "



They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement. It's not a dilemma for me. It works fine conceptually. The details are beyond us.

You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of the universal principle of identity. Hence, G = {F, S, H simultaneously} is preceded by A: A = A =. Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier simultaneously, wherein each element is a divine person. Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically? Yes. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion. But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity. Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well. But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.

I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory. I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms. If you use "God the Father . . ." on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.

Actually, either way is fine. The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless. Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability. In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically. That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions: the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.

Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom a set is not an element of itself for much the same reason that the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic: to amplify and explore new possibilities.

But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken. But the only real concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory. Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise. I jusnever thought about that wrinkle before. Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.

I basically agree that it is better to be unconditional (since God can neither be proven or disproven given that God represents something infinite eternal behind man's finite and limited scope of perception information and communcation)

So whether or not
A. there IS a central universal Source of all life and laws in existence
B. All things naturally exist and were always in effect as self-existent, or had a start or process that doesn't involve a
singular intelligent force in charge, or have no beginning or no end that we can know for sure without conjecturing
C. there is no such anything of any sort

Our decisions shouldn't depend on ASSUMING one way or the other or REJECTING one way or the other, but should work REGARDLESS which of these ways it is. Especially when dealing with people who live under these different ways, so we can respect each other's boundaries.

We should be able to interact in harmony REGARDLESS of these different ways, so no matter what we do, we still get along, cause no harm, correct errors when made, and help each other make the most of life, relations and knowledge/resources we have available to share.

The point is really do we agree how to act
and work together; what laws or language do we use
to describe the relations we agree to follow between us;
and if we have different or conflicting laws religions beliefs or values,
how do we communicate and manage to reach agreement anyway.

God's existence can be proven and is proven under the conventional standards of justification of organic/classical logic, ultimately premised on the universally self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity as derived from the contemplation of the problems of existence and origin.

What you're saying is false.

God’s existence simply cannot be proven in scientific terms because science if LIMITED to dealing with direct evidence about material things only. It's limitations have no bearing on the rational-empirical, evidentiary proofs for God's existence. What any given person decides to do with these proofs is subjective, but the substance of these proofs is not subjective.

What you're talking about is merely the distinction, in terms of ultimacy, between scientific theory, which is based on inferences derived from direct material evidence, and the logical proofs, which evince the cogency of an immaterial origin based on the same.

Science does not precede or have primacy over the rational and empirical facts of human cognition regarding the universally self-evident imperatives of existence and origin. You do not adequately understand what evidence and proofs are, what the difference is between subjective evidence and objective evidence, and what the difference is between direct evidence and indirect evidence. Also, you do not adequately understand the nature of scientific theories, which are inferred from direct physical evidence, albeit, as premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, which in and of itself is not scientifically falsifiable!

We define, we determine, we infer, we interpret, we decide.

Science doesn't do us; we do science. The limited utility of science doesn't dictate anything to anybody, but the thoughtless, the ignorant or the closed-minded. It is a tool used by us to deal with the material realm of being and nothing else but that. Philosophy deals with the definitions and delineations of metaphysics, and theology, the queen of the sciences, directly deals with the details of ultimate reality, the transcendent realm of being, the ground of all other existents. We need all three, ultimately premised on the affirmations of revealed religion.

I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.

Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....



Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?

Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been.

But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.

Hey, what can I say, I try! Yes, it's bad when I've got the logical existentialists turning on me.
Hmm... "spirit realms of supermagical gods?" Doesn't ring a bell as coming from me. I know that you and some others seem to think that the universe created itself from nothing, that sounds pretty 'supermagical' to me. I do talk about spiritual nature, but it's not magical or full of imagined incarnations of various human-like deities. But you see, I understand what you are saying, if I didn't comprehend spiritual nature, I'd probably make the same dumb assumptions.

Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.

 

[Boss]

Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.

Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out.

Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!

 

[G.T.]

Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.

Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out.

Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!

I think he leaves the angry and jealous but loving impression in the religious texts of new and old.

To me, if god is real, I'd rather not be with or honor him or her if it's the god of any of our current religious texts. In fact, if it's one of those gods, I'd rather not have existed ever at all and so I'm not seeing too good a reason to be grateful either.

I have a child.

Every first born son of egypt being killed? I oughta slap that bitch in his mouth.

Humans are born bad? No, fuck that. I don't have to "try" to be good. It's my nature to be good, and not the opposite. Fuck that, also.


Even if god DOES exist, I'm not necessarily going to worship him/her/it.

 

[Hollie]

Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.

Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out.

Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!

As usual, you offer the same canards in connection with defining your gods and magical spirit realms that spill out of every fundamentalist creation ministry. You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.

 

[Boss]

Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.

Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out.

Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!

As usual, you offer the same canards in connection with defining your gods and magical spirit realms that spill out of every fundamentalist creation ministry. You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.

You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.
Moi? LMAO!!

I have always believed God is an energy form we can't comprehend. It doesn't have or need human attributes. It does not care if you worship it any more than electricity cares if you worship it. We have the free will as humans to do as we please, we don't have to worship a God/Deity/Whatever. Religions are built upon the foundation of worshiping God. I'm not here to defend that, it doesn't matter to me what people do or how they spiritually connect. As long as they aren't killing other innocent people, I'm tolerant.

Now, God the Energy Form, is still there and is real. It's part of nature itself and the evidence is everything. Down to your ability to even realize a reality in a physical place where time is enabled. There is no other explanation for existence of the physical, no other explanation has logic.

 

[Hollie]

Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.

Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out.

Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!

As usual, you offer the same canards in connection with defining your gods and magical spirit realms that spill out of every fundamentalist creation ministry. You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.

You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.
Moi? LMAO!!

I have always believed God is an energy form we can't comprehend. It doesn't have or need human attributes. It does not care if you worship it any more than electricity cares if you worship it. We have the free will as humans to do as we please, we don't have to worship a God/Deity/Whatever. Religions are built upon the foundation of worshiping God. I'm not here to defend that, it doesn't matter to me what people do or how they spiritually connect. As long as they aren't killing other innocent people, I'm tolerant.

Now, God the Energy Form, is still there and is real. It's part of nature itself and the evidence is everything. Down to your ability to even realize a reality in a physical place where time is enabled. There is no other explanation for existence of the physical, no other explanation has logic.

Of course, the gods inhabiting your spirit realms are now an "energy". This same "energy" to which you attach human attributes. That's no different from the core elements of most religions where gods are simply extensions of human fears and superstitions. How strange that your gods evolve from post to post as you struggle to redefine them.

 

[Boss]

To me, if god is real, I'd rather not be with or honor him or her if it's the god of any of our current religious texts. In fact, if it's one of those gods, I'd rather not have existed ever at all and so I'm not seeing too good a reason to be grateful either.

I have a child.

Every first born son of egypt being killed? I oughta slap that bitch in his mouth.

Humans are born bad? No, fuck that. I don't have to "try" to be good. It's my nature to be good, and not the opposite. Fuck that, also.


Even if god DOES exist, I'm not necessarily going to worship him/her/it.

...I'd rather not have existed ever at all ...
Are you sure about this? While you can say a lot of bad things on old religion, you can't say what might have taken it's place in establishing our social morals as a species if they hadn't existed.

For instance, let's consider if humans had naturally evolved to behave like animals in the wild... Would your daughter be safe from say, other males in the species? Would your property be safe? More importantly, could you defend it? You see, you would need to because the law of the jungle would prevail and you'd have to in order to survive.

It's my nature to be good...
Yes, it is everyone's nature to be good. However, even Hitler thought he was good. The problem with man is hubris. We all rationalize our behaviors and justify our actions as "good" because we view ourselves as good people. Very few people will admit they are a total butt maggot with no redeeming qualities.

...I'm not necessarily going to worship...
I don't worship either. I don't have anything against it, I just don't see the need to do it. I do understand it though, the concept of worshiping God. I can respect that some people are compelled to do it and think they must, and I am fine with that... again, so long as heads aren't being decapitated and planes flown into buildings and such.

 

[Boss]

Of course, the gods inhabiting your spirit realms are now an "energy". This same "energy" to which you attach human attributes. That's no different from the core elements of most religions where gods are simply extensions of human fears and superstitions. How strange that your gods evolve from post to post as you struggle to redefine them.

You'll never find a post from me which assigns any human attribute to God.

 

[G.T.]

To me, if god is real, I'd rather not be with or honor him or her if it's the god of any of our current religious texts. In fact, if it's one of those gods, I'd rather not have existed ever at all and so I'm not seeing too good a reason to be grateful either.

I have a child.

Every first born son of egypt being killed? I oughta slap that bitch in his mouth.

Humans are born bad? No, fuck that. I don't have to "try" to be good. It's my nature to be good, and not the opposite. Fuck that, also.


Even if god DOES exist, I'm not necessarily going to worship him/her/it.

...I'd rather not have existed ever at all ...
Are you sure about this? While you can say a lot of bad things on old religion, you can't say what might have taken it's place in establishing our social morals as a species if they hadn't existed.

For instance, let's consider if humans had naturally evolved to behave like animals in the wild... Would your daughter be safe from say, other males in the species? Would your property be safe? More importantly, could you defend it? You see, you would need to because the law of the jungle would prevail and you'd have to in order to survive.

It's my nature to be good...
Yes, it is everyone's nature to be good. However, even Hitler thought he was good. The problem with man is hubris. We all rationalize our behaviors and justify our actions as "good" because we view ourselves as good people. Very few people will admit they are a total butt maggot with no redeeming qualities.

...I'm not necessarily going to worship...
I don't worship either. I don't have anything against it, I just don't see the need to do it. I do understand it though, the concept of worshiping God. I can respect that some people are compelled to do it and think they must, and I am fine with that... again, so long as heads aren't being decapitated and planes flown into buildings and such.

The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.

Not religion.

I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.

 

[dblack]

The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.

Not religion.

I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.

 

[G.T.]

The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.

Not religion.

I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.

It's impossible for religion to precede sentience, there is no such thing as "modern sentience." Modern knowledge, sure. Modern morals, sure. Modern sentience is not a thing.

 

[sealybobo]

Wondering if Justin is going to go with evidence of a generic god or if he's going to use all the "evidence" that theists use such as a book someone wrote about the myth 80 years after it supposedly happened. Big difference.

In one of G.T.'s posts he implied that I just go with whatever Rawlings says like I just blindly believe whatever he says and don't think for myself. He says this even though I questioned something Rawlings said that was a contradiction. Rawlings acknowledged that I was right but as he explained, he doesn't really believe what he seemed to be saying. He admitted that he wrote something in a bad way that meant something he didn't mean to imply. That was an honest error. In other words, Rawlings can admit when he makes an error, and he listens to people and tries to understand them, just like the way he listens to dblack and tries to understand him and is open to dblack's suggestions. Rawlings doesn't just blow people off like the silly nanny Foxfyre who got all huffy says.

Also, I know that what Rawlings has been saying all along about the classical laws of thought and the principle of identity is right and that QW is wrong because I know about these things on my own from my own studies before I came to this forum. I've leaned a lot more about it from Rawlings though. And I didn't just take Rawlings word on constructive logic but took the time to study up on it so that I could understand what QW and him were talking about.
Anyone can understand the basic rules and terms of constructive logic without all the technical language of logic and stuff. That's why I've had it with QW. I can clearly see that what Rawlings is saying about classical and constructive logic is right and everything QW is saying is a lie. Everything QW said is wrong; even the things he said that are true about constructive logic are really lies because he implies these things mean things they don't. That's the game he's playing when he says to show him where he's wrong about constructive logic not using all the axioms that classical logic uses. That's not the point and that liar QW knows that's not the point. Rawlings knows that better than QW and that doesn't make anything Rawlings has said wrong.

QW reminds me of how the devil uses the truth as a lie by twisting it. (And this something that I also leaned from Rawlings, how to use one sentence as a paragraph to make a point of fact stand out.)

What G.T. doesn't understand about me is that I trust what God's word says because everything it says that is objectively apparent to everyone about the issue of origin is objectively apparent to everyone about the issue of origin all the way up to what the universal principle of identity tells us about God and what He can do. That is all Rawlings has been talking about on this thread. I agree with Rawlings because I have the same belief based on what the Bible shows to be true about these things from Romans 1:18 and other places in the Bible. That same idea and all of the objective facts that are in our minds are listed in the Bible. That is my foundational belief, the same belief Rawlings has, and it always has been. I had that understanding of things before I came to this forum.

I don't believe what I do because Rawlings believes it. That's just silly. I already believed these things from the Bible before I ever met him on this forum. I've been thinking about the details of the same idea for months on my own and with the leading of the Holy Spirit. The basic idea is not new to me. Rawlings is just more advanced than me in this knowledge, and from him I now know a lot more about it all. That's all. What he says logically and objectively follows. He has never given me any reason to think that he is not being honest and objective.

The objective facts about the issue of origin are the only things that Rawlings and I are talking about. They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.

Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.

I don't get it. Give me your elevator pitch not 10 paragraphs.

Otherwise, here is my thoughts as I was reading your reply.

I think every theist who comes to this site, if they were being honest, isn’t 100% sure there is a god. If they were they wouldn’t be here. My brother wouldn’t even entertain this debate. It’s why I don’t have it with him. He also doesn’t try to “convert” me. And I might even believe that deep down he knows it doesn’t logically make sense. I’m pretty sure he knows the Adam and Noah stories are allegories but probably hasn’t put it together that so is the Jesus story. But he believes it is good for him and his family so I don't say anything negative. But that’s beside the point. Point is, he’s not coming on USMB to argue with theists. Either you are a bible thumper who can’t do enough converting in your real life so you come here to try to do more, or you want to “save” us atheists, or you aren’t sure. Why else would a theist be on USMB arguing with atheists? Most theists, agnostics and atheists “aren’t sure”. The ones who are are nuts. Agreed?

The Devil doesn’t do anything silly. Man uses the truth as a lie by twisting it. Will you get that through your thick skull? Man does that. Man man man. Man wrote the bible about evil MAN. The devil is another allegory.

You said you” trust what God's word says because everything it says that is objectively apparent to everyone” First of all, no it is not apparent to everyone and secondly, if it is so great, how come we don’t use it and instead we are a secular society that has laws instead?

 

[hobelim]

That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.

You are wrong. every Biblical reference to Satan, the Serpent, Lucifer, a demon or a devil is a figurative depiction of a human being, a deceitful sub human low life, and is not and never was about any invisible order of fallen preternatural beings.

Jesus himself called Peter Satan, he identified Judas as a devil, and he called the pharisees serpents.

not one of then was an invisible disembodied entity.


BTW how do you resolve the fact that Lucifer is identified as "the morning star" in Isaiah 14:12, and in revelation 22:16 Jesus specifically identifies himself as "the morning star"?

 

[Boss]

The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.

Not religion.

I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.

This is where I believe there is a flaw in your view. There are other sentient creatures in nature. Their morality is centered on animalistic instinct and what's best for the tribe. Yes, you can do all the rationalization, imagining and justification for how you think humans derived particular moralistic views not found anywhere else in nature, but you can't explain why we don't find these anywhere else in nature.

The human construct of morality is very much tied to our intrinsic awareness of a power greater than self. It is through this we became inspired creatures with the ability to conceive civilization. It also inspired us to create Religion.

Okay, harken ourselves back to caveman days, and you come to me with this idea that we should all get along and not kill each other because that's the least amount of suffering and is best for us... If I am the stronger dominate male cave man, you know what I am going to do with your idea? I am going to kill you and use your skull for a crapper. Why? Nature.