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

[Justin Davis]

Dear Hollie: From asking and checking around,
whatever "anger"' and fundamentalism that you blame on Christianity
is a flaw in human nature that Christianity brings out to be healed.

This is not unique to Christianity, though Christianity offers unique cures
and that is why it keeps coming up in that context.

As I posted to guno, most of the cases of religious abuse and trauma
find true healing and recovery with the help of the RIGHT support and practice these methods have to offer.

Just like bad math is fixed with correct math.
Bad science is corrected with accurate consistent science using the scientific method.

Whatever is wrong in religion is best fixed by fellow people within that sect that can correct their fellow peers.

That has always been the most effective remedy.

So you don't throw out the good science that is needed to fix the bad science.
You don't throw out the right math that is used to fix the wrong math.

And you don't throw out the good and right teachings in any religion
that are used to correct the abuses of that system.

Hollie the only people I've ever seen come to terms with their religious abuse or conflicts
were corrected by people practicing it correctly who could relate and speak to that person.

In Christianity, followers are called to rebuke one another in the spirit of the laws
to establish truth between them as fellow believers
Matthew 18:15-20

So leave the Christians and believers to rebuke each other by the laws we follow.

And for you and other secular gentiles
let's use natural laws and Scientific Methods
to prove our points to each other.

If you don't relate to Christian laws then don't use them.
Let's focus on the ones like Scott Peck who DID
see that the Scientific Method could be used to
prove how these things work!

That would make more sense to secular nontheistic
minds who understand scientific proof.

Let's stick to that the people who respond to science.
There is plenty to do that way, and it will be much
more effective, productive and beneficial.

But Hollie doesn't understand scientific proofs. She doesn't understand much of anything and won't be taught.

 

[Hollie]

[
"or prove it to be true by saying its not true"

The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.

So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself. At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot. You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think. The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that? You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious. I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.

Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment. "Who created God?" LOL! Even Hawking asks that same stupid question. There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. dblack made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection. Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia. If I did, that would be a lie.

Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention. He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism. But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable! LOL! And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.

Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard. His book will not withstand the test of time.

As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

So why doesn't GT frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck? That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.

Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

Wow. Your usual pointless pontification wherein you rattle on with bellicose claims to self importance.

Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

 

[Justin Davis]

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"?

I explain it by saying that your wrong. I really have no interest in this because you've made up your mind. I on the other hand no better.

 

[Hollie]

Dear Hollie: From asking and checking around,
whatever "anger"' and fundamentalism that you blame on Christianity
is a flaw in human nature that Christianity brings out to be healed.

This is not unique to Christianity, though Christianity offers unique cures
and that is why it keeps coming up in that context.

As I posted to guno, most of the cases of religious abuse and trauma
find true healing and recovery with the help of the RIGHT support and practice these methods have to offer.

Just like bad math is fixed with correct math.
Bad science is corrected with accurate consistent science using the scientific method.

Whatever is wrong in religion is best fixed by fellow people within that sect that can correct their fellow peers.

That has always been the most effective remedy.

So you don't throw out the good science that is needed to fix the bad science.
You don't throw out the right math that is used to fix the wrong math.

And you don't throw out the good and right teachings in any religion
that are used to correct the abuses of that system.

Hollie the only people I've ever seen come to terms with their religious abuse or conflicts
were corrected by people practicing it correctly who could relate and speak to that person.

In Christianity, followers are called to rebuke one another in the spirit of the laws
to establish truth between them as fellow believers
Matthew 18:15-20

So leave the Christians and believers to rebuke each other by the laws we follow.

And for you and other secular gentiles
let's use natural laws and Scientific Methods
to prove our points to each other.

If you don't relate to Christian laws then don't use them.
Let's focus on the ones like Scott Peck who DID
see that the Scientific Method could be used to
prove how these things work!

That would make more sense to secular nontheistic
minds who understand scientific proof.

Let's stick to that the people who respond to science.
There is plenty to do that way, and it will be much
more effective, productive and beneficial.

But Hollie doesn't understand scientific proofs. She doesn't understand much of anything and won't be taught.

I understand science well enough to know that you angry, self-hating Christian extremists are the ones most often science illiterate.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

The philosophy of science precedes science. dblack is talking about something else.

 

[Hollie]

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"?

I explain it by saying that your wrong. I really have no interest in this because you've made up your mind. I on the other hand no better.

Apparently, you don't. You don't know enough to even string words into coherent sentences. "Your" too slow to "no" that.

 

[Hollie]

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.

The philosophy of science precedes science. dblack is talking about something else.

And your "philosophy of science" has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition the was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.

 

[Justin Davis]

[
"or prove it to be true by saying its not true"

The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.

So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself. At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot. You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think. The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that? You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious. I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.

Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment. "Who created God?" LOL! Even Hawking asks that same stupid question. There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. dblack made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection. Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia. If I did, that would be a lie.

Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention. He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism. But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable! LOL! And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.

Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard. His book will not withstand the test of time.

As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

So why doesn't GT frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck? That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.

Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

I actually met Dawkins after a talk he gave at Berkeley. I was doing a plumbing job in Oakland for an origin build, heard he'd be there a few months before I left for the job and bought a ticket. During the question and answer time I kept trying to get noticed by the microphone guy but never got picked, but because I came with a copy of his book I got it signed by him later. I wasn't a Christian back then but was asking questions and wondering. I read his book and only got convinced that he was nuts. But, hey, would I ever get another chance to here this guy in person, probably not so I did. I assume you mean "The God Delusion" because that's one getting hit hard and that's one I read.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

Oh?

The Five Things Everybody Necessarily Knows/Concedes​

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 the 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?

But looky here. We have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendent law keeper"!

Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.

 

[Hollie]

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

Wow. Your usual pointless pontification wherein you rattle on with bellicose claims to self importance.

Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

Bra strap.[/QUOTE]
Is that the whiskey talkin'

Pathetic drunkard.

 

[G.T.]

[
"or prove it to be true by saying its not true"

The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.

So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself. At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot. You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think. The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that? You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious. I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.

Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment. "Who created God?" LOL! Even Hawking asks that same stupid question. There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. dblack made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection. Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia. If I did, that would be a lie.

Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention. He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism. But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable! LOL! And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.

Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard. His book will not withstand the test of time.

As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

So why doesn't GT frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck? That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.

Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

I think you owe me an apology.

I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.

#2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.

 

[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.

Quoting myself as a bump for the people who somehow saw otherwise.

 

[dblack]

...
As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

Hold on there, bucko. If you don't mind, I'll write my own concession speeches. I found your 'five things' argument largely inscrutable, full of suspicious equivocations and - to my ears - empty sophistry. If you want to accuse me of not being intelligent enough to follow your construction, be my guest. But it didn't make any sense to me, so don't go advertising that I 'conceded' to it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[
"or prove it to be true by saying its not true"

The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.

So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself. At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot. You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think. The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that? You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious. I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.

Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment. "Who created God?" LOL! Even Hawking asks that same stupid question. There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. dblack made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection. Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia. If I did, that would be a lie.

Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention. He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism. But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable! LOL! And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.

Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard. His book will not withstand the test of time.

As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

So why doesn't GT frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck? That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.

Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

I actually met Dawkins after a talk he gave at Berkeley. I was doing a plumbing job in Oakland for an origin build, heard he'd be there a few months before I left for the job and bought a ticket. During the question and answer time I kept trying to get noticed by the microphone guy but never got picked, but because I came with a copy of his book I got it signed by him later. I wasn't a Christian back then but was asking questions and wondering. I read his book and only got convinced that he was nuts. But, hey, would I ever get another chance to here this guy in person, probably not so I did. I assume you mean "The God Delusion" because that's one getting hit hard and that's one I read.

Yeah. Sorry, I am talking about The God Delusion. I edited that post to make it clear. Good eye.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

...
As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

Hold on there, bucko. If you don't mind, I'll write my own concession speeches. I found your 'five things' argument largely inscrutable, full of suspicious equivocations and - to my ears - empty sophistry. If you want to accuse me of not being intelligent enough to follow your construction, be my guest. But it didn't make any sense to me, so don't go advertising that I 'conceded' to it.

Actually, we we're in the process of narrowing down mutual terms, which established the first three things. The fourth and fifth necessarily follow. You simply weren't aware that the terms you objected to were technical and encompassed the terms you preferred. I told you I was okay with your alternate terms. You just haven't thought 4 and 5 through yet to see why they necessarily follow. Would you care to continue the process and find out why that's true?

You do exist, right?
You do believe that the universe exists, right?
You do acknowledge the fact that the potentiality of God's existence as the origin of material existence cannot be flatly denied logically, right? And if that's not true, why isn't true?

Four and Five follow. . . .

 

[Hollie]

Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

Oh?

The Five Things Everybody Necessarily Knows/Concedes​

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 the 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?

But looky here. We have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendent law keeper"!

Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.

Oh?

You're confused and befuddled regarding who and what you're responding to.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[
"or prove it to be true by saying its not true"

The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.

So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself. At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot. You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think. The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that? You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious. I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.

Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment. "Who created God?" LOL! Even Hawking asks that same stupid question. There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. dblack made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection. Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia. If I did, that would be a lie.

Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention. He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism. But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable! LOL! And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.

Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard. His book will not withstand the test of time.

As for GT, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things." Everyone has, as everyone must. Dawkins has conceded them. No one escapes these imperatives. QW has unwittingly conceded them all. So has Hollie. So has Boss. So has dblack. And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

So why doesn't GT frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck? That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.

Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!

I think you owe me an apology.

I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.

#2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.

I don't owe you an apology. You said that the agnostic position is the only rational position, though the bulk of the evidence supports theism, not agnosticism and certainly not atheism. I put in agnostic-atheist just in case you leaned that way. If you don't, fine. That has no bearing on the matter. You also acknowledge that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things including the fact that it knew all things. So what's your beef? Did you change your mind again about these things again. Sheesh. LOL!

 

[dblack]

Actually, we we're in the process of narrowing down mutual terms, which established the first three things. The fourth and fifth necessarily follow. You simply weren't aware that the terms you objected to were technical and encompassed the terms you preferred. I told you I was okay with your alternate terms. You just haven't thought 4 and 5 through yet to see why they necessarily follow. Would you care to continue the process and find out why that's true?

Sure, I'll play.

You do exist, right?

As far as I know, yeah.

You do believe that the universe exists, right?

Yes.

You do acknowledge the fact that the potentiality of God's existence as the origin of material existence cannot be flatly denied logically, right?

I suppose, though i reject this as the definition of atheism. Not sure how that affects your machinery...

Four and Five follow. . . .

Yeah, well, that's definitely where you lost me. I couldn't figure out what they were supposed to mean, how they were connected, or even what point the whole mess was supposed to prove. Can you rephrase it in the common tongue? I'm running low on tylenol.

 

[Justin Davis]

Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.

Oh?

The Five Things Everybody Necessarily Knows/Concedes​

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 the 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?

But looky here. We have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendent law keeper"!

Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.

Oh?

You're confused and befuddled regarding who and what you're responding to.

Some people are befuddled for sure. Speak the word atheist and then define it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Actually, we we're in the process of narrowing down mutual terms, which established the first three things. The fourth and fifth necessarily follow. You simply weren't aware that the terms you objected to were technical and encompassed the terms you preferred. I told you I was okay with your alternate terms. You just haven't thought 4 and 5 through yet to see why they necessarily follow. Would you care to continue the process and find out why that's true?

Sure, I'll play.

You do exist, right?

As far as I know, yeah.

You do believe that the universe exists, right?

Yes.

You do acknowledge the fact that the potentiality of God's existence as the origin of material existence cannot be flatly denied logically, right?

I suppose, though i reject this as the definition of atheism. Not sure how that affects your machinery...

Four and Five follow. . . .

Yeah, well, that's definitely where you lost me. I couldn't figure out what they were supposed to mean, how they were connected, or even what point the whole mess was supposed to prove. Can you rephrase it in the common tongue? I'm running low on tylenol.

I didn't mean any offense, dblack. It seemed to me we had worked out the first three. I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right? And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated, so what's your beef? From there four and five follow. In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?