Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[Boss]

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon.

You have that and the theological ramifications thereof right, but why you fail to consistently hold that God would, therefore, necessarily be above and beyond the temporal realm of being is beyond me. God is the universal Principle of Identity. God = God. The prescriptive laws of logic and the descriptive, physical laws of nature are not the same thing! The former is the essence of God; the latter were created by God. The former have primacy over the latter!

You assert the primacy of God and contradictorily undermine the foundation of that primacy. You're trying to assert methodological and metaphysical naturalism at the same time, in effect.

Here’s the real irony: you were trying to attribute an idea to me that I utterly reject as you assert an idea about which you do not grasp the logical ramifications.

No, I consistently place my God above anything in the temporal realm of being. Principles of identity, laws of logic, physics and laws of nature, are relative to human conscience and understanding. They cannot be the foundation of my God's primacy. Not only are these attributes only applicable to humans, they were all created and defined by humans and human thought. Now... IF something that was created by humans and human thought can be the foundation of God, that would necessarily diminish God, rendering God to merely a creation of man. I don't believe Man created God or can grant God primacy through concept of human thought.

I don't have any problem with laws of logic or laws of identity, etc. You continue to preach as if that is what you think the problem is here and it's simply not the problem. All of the stuff you are spending thousands of words to explain in the most grandiose fashion, are simply words, ideas, concepts, thoughts, constructed and compiled by mortal human beings with normal mammal brains. They quite simply mean NOTHING to the cosmos without humans.

The 'thing' that I am trying to convey to you is the nature beyond our ability to comprehend. We have all the concepts and "laws of" this or that, but they remain in the context of what our particular species of mortal carbon-based life can imagine, comprehend, understand, be aware of. As egotistical as we wish to be, humans are incapable of understanding things beyond their ability to comprehend. The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

In the spirit of examining what humans can formulate logical arguments with for support of God, I don't have much problem with your arguments about principles of identity and such, where we are at a disagreement is on whether this is empirical truth or not. You believe it is and I believe it is uncertain. That said, I also think a much more compelling argument for "spiritual dimensions" are apparent in quantum physics and what we are beginning to learn of the subatomic universe. What we see there is a breakdown of logic, time. space, all our typical concepts of the natural physical universe we've come to know and love. It's pretty fucking incredible.

Now people can claim that quantum mechanics are all supported with mathematics and parameters of chemistry, physics and such, and we can apply classical logic to the subatomic world just the same as everywhere. Not true. We're finding more and more that weird things are happening there, and they don't comport with classical logic or anything we can reliably predict.

The century-old double slit experiment is still perplexing scientists. The more closely they try to look, the more baffled they become with what is actually happening there. And the "observer effect" has never been sufficiently explained. It appears that all particles are waves until we observe them. Not only that, but they can change back to particles if we try to trick them by observing later. Literally, it appears they are changing the past. Quantum tunneling, another phenomenon unexplained by classical logic and physics. This is where some particles can pass through solid objects without the energy to do so. What's happening there? We don't know! It's as if the particles 'borrow' energy from the future because they are physically already on the other side of the barrier, they just need to appear there. Weird, weird stuff man!

Particles can be two places at the same time or nowhere, yet still exist. They can be waves or particles depending on if they are observed. They may lack the energy to pass through certain barriers, but some may pass through anyway. When we attempt to confine them to measure their position and speed, they break confinement... mother nature will not allow us to measure her fundamental elements.

And we haven't even talked about "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" which comprise about 96% of our universe.
Can't talk much about it because we simply don't know what the fuck it is!

 

[BreezeWood]

The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.

that has been played for centuries by people that are "satisfied" at the expense of those that would rather find the truth and answers. -

change / knowledge is the work of the devil ... if the book says Earth is the center of the universe, burn the naysayers at the post.

.

 

[Boss]

The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.

that has been played for centuries by people that are "satisfied" at the expense of those that would rather find the truth and answers. -

change / knowledge is the work of the devil ... if the book says Earth is the center of the universe, burn the naysayers at the post.

.

I disagree with your evaluation of what I said. I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers. It is not what I said, nor is it remotely implied in the context of what I said. So the real question here becomes, why are you trying so desperately to distort and pervert my words?

 

[BreezeWood]

The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.

that has been played for centuries by people that are "satisfied" at the expense of those that would rather find the truth and answers. -

change / knowledge is the work of the devil ... if the book says Earth is the center of the universe, burn the naysayers at the post.

.

I disagree with your evaluation of what I said. I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers. It is not what I said, nor is it remotely implied in the context of what I said. So the real question here becomes, why are you trying so desperately to distort and pervert my words?

.

boss: I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers.

boss: and will never know

.

it's a classic bossy, and not surprisingly used by you .... just leave it to (.....) because (.....) knows best - because I told you so.

and will never know - you're right boss, if you never reach the apex you will never know - just try not preventing others from accomplishing the feat.

.

 

[HUGGY]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

A lot of mental masturbation to avoid having to admit that the whole god thing is pretty silly.

But, hey, you're not alone in this belief and you're more than welcome to it.

No one is talking to you and no one gives a shit about what an idiot like you thinks.

You only speak for yourself idgit.

 

[Boss]

The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.

that has been played for centuries by people that are "satisfied" at the expense of those that would rather find the truth and answers. -

change / knowledge is the work of the devil ... if the book says Earth is the center of the universe, burn the naysayers at the post.

.

I disagree with your evaluation of what I said. I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers. It is not what I said, nor is it remotely implied in the context of what I said. So the real question here becomes, why are you trying so desperately to distort and pervert my words?

.

boss: I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers.

boss: and will never know

.

it's a classic bossy, and not surprisingly used by you .... just leave it to (.....) because (.....) knows best - because I told you so.

and will never know - you're right boss, if you never reach the apex you will never know - just try not preventing others from accomplishing the feat.

.

Again.... NOT WHAT I SAID!

You are LITERALLY chopping up my post and creating some "statement" from me that was not made or implied. This is actually against the forum rules on quoting other posters.

I refuse to entertain any such conversation.

 

[PredFan]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

A lot of mental masturbation to avoid having to admit that the whole god thing is pretty silly.

But, hey, you're not alone in this belief and you're more than welcome to it.

No one is talking to you and no one gives a shit about what an idiot like you thinks.

You only speak for yourself idgit.

I started this thread, you came in, so apparently you DO care what I think.
How stupid are you exactly?

 

[BreezeWood]

The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.

that has been played for centuries by people that are "satisfied" at the expense of those that would rather find the truth and answers. -

change / knowledge is the work of the devil ... if the book says Earth is the center of the universe, burn the naysayers at the post.

.

I disagree with your evaluation of what I said. I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers. It is not what I said, nor is it remotely implied in the context of what I said. So the real question here becomes, why are you trying so desperately to distort and pervert my words?

.

boss: I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers.

boss: and will never know

.

it's a classic bossy, and not surprisingly used by you .... just leave it to (.....) because (.....) knows best - because I told you so.

and will never know - you're right boss, if you never reach the apex you will never know - just try not preventing others from accomplishing the feat.

.

Again.... NOT WHAT I SAID!

You are LITERALLY chopping up my post and creating some "statement" from me that was not made or implied. This is actually against the forum rules on quoting other posters.

I refuse to entertain any such conversation.

boss: The 'thing' that I am trying to convey to you is the nature beyond our ability to comprehend. We have all the concepts and "laws of" this or that, but they remain in the context of what our particular species of mortal carbon-based life can imagine, comprehend, understand, be aware of. As egotistical as we wish to be, humans are incapable of understanding things beyond their ability to comprehend. The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.
sorry bossy, if that is a discussion of the Almighty it is simply your reluctance to assimilate anything that does not fit your comfort zone ... where others are willing to accomplish, if necessarily by forced chance or experience.


and will never know - especially if you or (religious fanatics) go about burning them at steaks when they believe otherwise.

.

 

[Boss]

The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.

that has been played for centuries by people that are "satisfied" at the expense of those that would rather find the truth and answers. -

change / knowledge is the work of the devil ... if the book says Earth is the center of the universe, burn the naysayers at the post.

.

I disagree with your evaluation of what I said. I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers. It is not what I said, nor is it remotely implied in the context of what I said. So the real question here becomes, why are you trying so desperately to distort and pervert my words?

.

boss: I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers.

boss: and will never know

.

it's a classic bossy, and not surprisingly used by you .... just leave it to (.....) because (.....) knows best - because I told you so.

and will never know - you're right boss, if you never reach the apex you will never know - just try not preventing others from accomplishing the feat.

.

Again.... NOT WHAT I SAID!

You are LITERALLY chopping up my post and creating some "statement" from me that was not made or implied. This is actually against the forum rules on quoting other posters.

I refuse to entertain any such conversation.

boss: The 'thing' that I am trying to convey to you is the nature beyond our ability to comprehend. We have all the concepts and "laws of" this or that, but they remain in the context of what our particular species of mortal carbon-based life can imagine, comprehend, understand, be aware of. As egotistical as we wish to be, humans are incapable of understanding things beyond their ability to comprehend. The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.
sorry bossy, if that is a discussion of the Almighty it is simply your reluctance to assimilate anything that does not fit your comfort zone ... where others are willing to accomplish, if necessarily by forced chance or experience.

and will never know - especially if you or (religious fanatics) go about burning them at steaks when they believe otherwise.

.

Why do you keep posting what I said, then inferring I said some crazy thing that simply isn't implied anywhere in my words? Then, you seem to be getting angry at me for whatever crazy thing I didn't say! We can't have rational conversation this way. Both of us need to reside in reality and one of us appears split from it here. I'm saying things and you're reading craziness that isn't there.

I didn't mention "The Almighty" in what you are quoting. I didn't say anything about a comfort zone or others willing to take chances or experience things. I certainly didn't suggest burning people at steaks (sic) over what they believe. Not only did I not say any of this, I don't even get where you derived this from what I did say. It's not even in the same time zone. So what's going on here, Breeze, do you need medical attention for your mental health? .

 

[BreezeWood]

.

that has been played for centuries by people that are "satisfied" at the expense of those that would rather find the truth and answers. -

change / knowledge is the work of the devil ... if the book says Earth is the center of the universe, burn the naysayers at the post.

.

I disagree with your evaluation of what I said. I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers. It is not what I said, nor is it remotely implied in the context of what I said. So the real question here becomes, why are you trying so desperately to distort and pervert my words?

.

boss: I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers.

boss: and will never know

.

it's a classic bossy, and not surprisingly used by you .... just leave it to (.....) because (.....) knows best - because I told you so.

and will never know - you're right boss, if you never reach the apex you will never know - just try not preventing others from accomplishing the feat.

.

Again.... NOT WHAT I SAID!

You are LITERALLY chopping up my post and creating some "statement" from me that was not made or implied. This is actually against the forum rules on quoting other posters.

I refuse to entertain any such conversation.

boss: The 'thing' that I am trying to convey to you is the nature beyond our ability to comprehend. We have all the concepts and "laws of" this or that, but they remain in the context of what our particular species of mortal carbon-based life can imagine, comprehend, understand, be aware of. As egotistical as we wish to be, humans are incapable of understanding things beyond their ability to comprehend. The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.
sorry bossy, if that is a discussion of the Almighty it is simply your reluctance to assimilate anything that does not fit your comfort zone ... where others are willing to accomplish, if necessarily by forced chance or experience.

and will never know - especially if you or (religious fanatics) go about burning them at steaks when they believe otherwise.

.

Why do you keep posting what I said, then inferring I said some crazy thing that simply isn't implied anywhere in my words? Then, you seem to be getting angry at me for whatever crazy thing I didn't say! We can't have rational conversation this way. Both of us need to reside in reality and one of us appears split from it here. I'm saying things and you're reading craziness that isn't there.

I didn't mention "The Almighty" in what you are quoting. I didn't say anything about a comfort zone or others willing to take chances or experience things. I certainly didn't suggest burning people at steaks (sic) over what they believe. Not only did I not say any of this, I don't even get where you derived this from what I did say. It's not even in the same time zone. So what's going on here, Breeze, do you need medical attention for your mental health? .

mdr: God is the universal Principle of Identity. God = God.

boss: No, I consistently place my God above anything in the temporal realm of being.

boss: The 'thing' that I am trying to convey to you is the nature beyond our ability to comprehend.

Breeze Wood: sorry bossy, if that is a discussion of the Almighty ...

boss:I didn't mention "The Almighty" in what you are quoting.

.
I disagree yours was not a discussion of the Creator, and placing your objective in a comfort zone not accessible to contradictory, verifiable reasoning.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

that has been played for centuries by people that are "satisfied" at the expense of those that would rather find the truth and answers. -

change / knowledge is the work of the devil ... if the book says Earth is the center of the universe, burn the naysayers at the post.

.

I disagree with your evaluation of what I said. I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers. It is not what I said, nor is it remotely implied in the context of what I said. So the real question here becomes, why are you trying so desperately to distort and pervert my words?

.

boss: I did not say the very best we can do is to be satisfied with what we know. I didn't say we should avoid seeking truth and answers.

boss: and will never know

.

it's a classic bossy, and not surprisingly used by you .... just leave it to (.....) because (.....) knows best - because I told you so.

and will never know - you're right boss, if you never reach the apex you will never know - just try not preventing others from accomplishing the feat.

.

Again.... NOT WHAT I SAID!

You are LITERALLY chopping up my post and creating some "statement" from me that was not made or implied. This is actually against the forum rules on quoting other posters.

I refuse to entertain any such conversation.

boss: The 'thing' that I am trying to convey to you is the nature beyond our ability to comprehend. We have all the concepts and "laws of" this or that, but they remain in the context of what our particular species of mortal carbon-based life can imagine, comprehend, understand, be aware of. As egotistical as we wish to be, humans are incapable of understanding things beyond their ability to comprehend. The very best we can do is understand what we know and realize there is a lot we don't know and will never know because we can't comprehend it.

.
sorry bossy, if that is a discussion of the Almighty it is simply your reluctance to assimilate anything that does not fit your comfort zone ... where others are willing to accomplish, if necessarily by forced chance or experience.

and will never know - especially if you or (religious fanatics) go about burning them at steaks when they believe otherwise.

.

Why do you keep posting what I said, then inferring I said some crazy thing that simply isn't implied anywhere in my words? Then, you seem to be getting angry at me for whatever crazy thing I didn't say! We can't have rational conversation this way. Both of us need to reside in reality and one of us appears split from it here. I'm saying things and you're reading craziness that isn't there.

I didn't mention "The Almighty" in what you are quoting. I didn't say anything about a comfort zone or others willing to take chances or experience things. I certainly didn't suggest burning people at steaks (sic) over what they believe. Not only did I not say any of this, I don't even get where you derived this from what I did say. It's not even in the same time zone. So what's going on here, Breeze, do you need medical attention for your mental health? .

mdr: God is the universal Principle of Identity. God = God.

boss: No, I consistently place my God above anything in the temporal realm of being.

boss: The 'thing' that I am trying to convey to you is the nature beyond our ability to comprehend.

Breeze Wood: sorry bossy, if that is a discussion of the Almighty ...

boss:I didn't mention "The Almighty" in what you are quoting.

.
I disagree yours was not a discussion of the Creator, and placing your objective in a comfort zone not accessible to contradictory, verifiable reasoning.

.

 

[Boss]

I disagree yours was not a discussion of the Creator, and placing your objective in a comfort zone not accessible to contradictory, verifiable reasoning.

Well you are disagreeing with reality then. I said none of what you've implied. You can keep pretending I've made statements I didn't make, but I'm not going to let them stand. I simply didn't say what you claim I said.

Yes, we are having a discussion here about God, aka: the Creator. That doesn't mean that every sentence is specifically about God. I didn't mention God. I simply said there are things we can't comprehend and will never be able to comprehend. Now you can disagree with that if you like, but you can't refute it and I won't let you morph it into something I didn't say.

I've not put anything in comfort zone, haven't advocated we should put things in our comfort zone, and have no fucking idea what the hell you're talking about. Again... it's NOWHERE in the text I posted! It's not implied, it's not inferred.

I tell ya what, Breeze... Why don't I shut up and allow you to have the imaginary conversation you seem to be having with me instead? Do you think that might reverse your senility?

 

[MaxGrit]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

 

[the_human_being]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

 

[Hollie]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

Why are you hyper-religious types so angry and self hating?

 

[the_human_being]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

Why are you hyper-religious types so angry and self hating?

We won the election by a landslide. We will tell you what to think and when to think, otherwise, we will provide you with your basic needs for survival.

 

[Hollie]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

Why are you hyper-religious types so angry and self hating?

We won the election by a landslide. We will tell you what to think and when to think, otherwise, we will provide you with your basic needs for survival.

You and the rest of the xtian Taliban?

 

[BreezeWood]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

Why are you hyper-religious types so angry and self hating?

We won the election by a landslide. We will tell you what to think and when to think, otherwise, we will provide you with your basic needs for survival.

.

We won the election by a landslide ...

an offyear election you bought after 8 years of Senate control by democrats and presently a democratic President for an additional 2 years ...

the_human_being: We will tell you what to think and when to think ...

that works for the audience of Fox news, your problem however will be how not to cry when the Administration veto's your legislation and the sane republicans craw to Nancy Pelosi for help.

.

 

[the_human_being]

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

Why are you hyper-religious types so angry and self hating?

We won the election by a landslide. We will tell you what to think and when to think, otherwise, we will provide you with your basic needs for survival.

.

We won the election by a landslide ...

an offyear election you bought after 8 years of Senate control by democrats and presently a democratic President for an additional 2 years ...

the_human_being: We will tell you what to think and when to think ...

that works for the audience of Fox news, your problem however will be how not to cry when the Administration veto's your legislation and the sane republicans craw to Nancy Pelosi for help.

.

You need to lay off that cheap wine. It's eating up your brain cells. BOTH of them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things?

It's not in the bible