Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Continued from Post #2186: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/
Emily and Boss:
I have already proven what we all believe to be true, what everyone on this thread has acknowledge to believe regarding the problems of existence and origin: The Five Things! And these Five Things are as axiomatically true as 2 + 2 = 4.
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
4. The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
5. However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.
(Note: I have simplified the expression of The Five Things so as to make them more emphatically clear.)
The fact that virtually everyone on this thread has acknowledged that these Five Things are necessarily true, that they are among the first principles of existence, that these things are in fact universally known by all humans upon reflection or once they are properly presented to them: belies your claim, Boss, that there are no objectively absolute and universal beliefs that are held to be necessarily true about reality as knowledge.
On the contrary, it would appear that they (atheists) don't require anything rational or any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that there is no real substance behind the idea of God that is in their heads.
.
The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
Get over it people.
.
Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.
He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
He wrote: "[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."
In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that God exists! is, of course, a logical proof that God exists! The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that logically proves it to be true. In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic. If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.
I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.
Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed? Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed? Can I find anything about it on the Internet? Do you have a link? I'd like to study it
In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.
You write: " 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.
Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.
Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
Continued from Post #2186: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/
Emily and Boss:
I have already proven what we all believe to be true, what everyone on this thread has acknowledge to believe regarding the problems of existence and origin: The Five Things! And these Five Things are as axiomatically true as 2 + 2 = 4.
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
4. The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
5. However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.
(Note: I have simplified the expression of The Five Things so as to make them more emphatically clear.)
The fact that virtually everyone on this thread has acknowledged that these Five Things are necessarily true, that they are among the first principles of existence, that these things are in fact universally known by all humans upon reflection or once they are properly presented to them: belies your claim, Boss, that there are no objectively absolute and universal beliefs that are held to be necessarily true about reality as knowledge.
Virtually? Huh... how about actually? Let's do a poll:
Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
M.P. Rawlings: It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
Justin Davis: What he said!
Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: My local used car salesman is more compelling.
sealybobo:
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:
Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
On the contrary, it would appear that they (atheists) don't require anything rational or any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that there is no real substance behind the idea of God that is in their heads.
there is no dependency for anyone to accomplish the goal of Admission to the Everlasting, if in part to be an Atheist is to forgo that goal for their belief it is no different than the Christians use of their Bible as being the same purposeless endeavor with the outcome as being identical - both have lost their way.
at any rate there no representation of the atheist present in this thread as above mentioned, give example if otherwise so what is the reason for the post other than your self directed and hollow conclusion ?
agnostic atheism, agnosticism etc. are what are alternatives for their beliefs and if coupled with a goal for Admission to the Everlasting are no different than theism.
Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
M.P. Rawlings: It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
Justin Davis: What he said!
Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: My local used car salesman is more compelling.
sealybobo: What are the five things?
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:
Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
On the contrary, it would appear that they (atheists) don't require anything rational or any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that there is no real substance behind the idea of God that is in their heads.
there is no dependency for anyone to accomplish the goal of Admission to the Everlasting, if in part to be an Atheist is to forgo that goal for their belief it is no different than the Christians use of their Bible as being the same purposeless endeavor with the outcome as being identical - both have lost their way.
at any rate there no representation of the atheist present in this thread as above mentioned, give example if otherwise so what is the reason for the post other than your self directed and hollow conclusion ?
agnostic atheism, agnosticism etc. are what are alternatives for their beliefs and if coupled with a goal for Admission to the Everlasting are no different than theism.
.
The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
Get over it people.
.
Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.
He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
He wrote: "[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."
In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that God exists! is, of course, a logical proof that God exists! The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that logically proves it to be true. In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic. If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.
I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.
Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed? Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed? Can I find anything about it on the Internet? Do you have a link? I'd like to study it
In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.
You write: " 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.
Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.
Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
But you seem to be making everything subjective. That just can't be and that's all I been trying to tell you like Rawlings.
Continued from Post #2186: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/
Emily and Boss:
I have already proven what we all believe to be true, what everyone on this thread has acknowledge to believe regarding the problems of existence and origin: The Five Things! And these Five Things are as axiomatically true as 2 + 2 = 4.
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
4. The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
5. However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.
(Note: I have simplified the expression of The Five Things so as to make them more emphatically clear.)
The fact that virtually everyone on this thread has acknowledged that these Five Things are necessarily true, that they are among the first principles of existence, that these things are in fact universally known by all humans upon reflection or once they are properly presented to them: belies your claim, Boss, that there are no objectively absolute and universal beliefs that are held to be necessarily true about reality as knowledge.
Virtually? Huh... how about actually? Let's do a poll:
Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
M.P. Rawlings: It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
Justin Davis: What he said!
Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: My local used car salesman is more compelling.
sealybobo:
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:
Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.
But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.
Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.
He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
He wrote: "[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."
In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that God exists! is, of course, a logical proof that God exists! The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that logically proves it to be true. In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic. If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.
I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant. See how that works? He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.
Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed? Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed? Can I find anything about it on the Internet? Do you have a link? I'd like to study it
In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.
You write: " 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.
Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.
Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
But you seem to be making everything subjective. That just can't be and that's all I been trying to tell you like Rawlings.
Seems like you are a Rawlings lapdog. Are you the one always quoting him? I was wondering who you were talking about. Do you worship him?
But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.
Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.
Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
M.P. Rawlings: It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
Justin Davis: What he said!
Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: My local used car salesman is more compelling.
sealybobo: What are the five things?
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:
Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
Updated:
Totals:
Yes: 2
No:
WTF??: 2
But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.
Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
Five things:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 110 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.
Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
I asked you a fucking question. What are the 5 things? You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.
But there you go again, changing what he said. You're playing shell games on yourslef. The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things. All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation. He isn't saying they prove God exists at all. The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you? Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly. So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate. At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss." See? I willing to bet that's what he means.
Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
