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

[M.D. Rawlings]

My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:

"The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"

Ya' can't argue against such a bulletproof argument, because I say so!

It can't be stated or thought without contradiction. See above. It has nothing to do with what I say. All of the things I have talked about are objectively true.

 

[dblack]

My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:

"The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"

Not bad! Copy and paste that ten or fifteen times, mix it up a bit, and I think you've pretty much nailed it.

 

[G.T.]

No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.

That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the fucking difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes: just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists. They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events. But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish. Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis. Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects. Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.

I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.

In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is. And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes: just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists. They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events. But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish. Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis. Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects. Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.

I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.

In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is. And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.

I don’t follow this: “ ‘chance' and/or mathematical probability’ "


There's nothing in my posts about this kind of thing, though, admittedly, I'm not sure precisely what you're talking about. I'm just guessing, but could you be referring to the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty?

The formulaic calculi of iinfinitesimalsare absolutes regarding the rational potentialities of existence, including material or immaterial existents.

At the simplest level, our immediate level of apprehension, the issue is the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive extrapolation directly intuited from the three fundamental laws of human thought.

This link touches on this: The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[Foxfyre]

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes: just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists. They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events. But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish. Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis. Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects. Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.

I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.

In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is. And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes: just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists. They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events. But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish. Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis. Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects. Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.

I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.

In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is. And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.

I don’t follow this: “ ‘chance' and/or mathematical probability’ "


There's nothing in my posts about this kind of thing, though, admittedly, I'm not sure precisely what you're talking about. I'm just guessing, but could you be referring to the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty?

The formulaic calculi of iinfinitesimalsare absolutes regarding the rational potentialities of existence, including material or immaterial existents.

At the simplest level, our immediate level of apprehension, the issue is the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive extrapolation directly intuited from the three fundamental laws of human thought.

This link touches on this: The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Well I'm not surprised that you don't follow it since you have consistently pointed out how ignorant, clueless, and uneducated I am and everybody else, except you and Justin of course, is.. And my comment was not directed at you but was specifically in response to another member's comment. And you simply aren't impressing me with all the overly grandiloquent verbiage that is both non sequitur and illogical within the context of the OP. So you might as well stop trying.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Fool still doesn't know what axiom means.

It is an axiom!

I've tried a number times, civilly, to help you see the obvious.

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?

That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.

2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.

You guys keep thinking # 2, when the only thing logicians are talking is #1.

And the ultimate cognition is a question: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?

 

[G.T.]

Fool still doesn't know what axiom means.

It is an axiom!

I've tried a number times, civilly, to help you see the obvious.

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?

That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.

2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.

You guys keep thinking # 2, when the only thing logicians are talking is #1.

And the ultimate cognition is a question: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?

Of course you don't see wherein lies the problem.

You're a daft prick.

Hint: "creation" sort of actually has to be proven before you go calling existence one. That's how PROOF works. Its not what you can make a decent case for dimwit, its what you can PROVE.

TAG might be the biggest fraud since Columbus taking credit for Amerigo Vespucci's sweat.

 

[G.T.]

"Creation needs a creator!!" Is an axiom.

Existence was created is not.

 

[G.T.]

Also -

"Logicians" universally accepting TAG is a lie.

Also -

"Logicians" as an appeal to authority means nothing to me. Especially...and I mean this emphatically...IF YOURE ONE.

cuz if you've spent years studying logic and don't see the problem with tag, then I was smarter than you before I left grade school.

Its kind of sad, really. Spend years looking to affirm something that any non gullible tom dick or Jane can see is bullshit within the first four minutes of hearing it.


To recap:

We were created is not proven, it doesn't rise above theory.

Absolutes need to be "grounded" in a mind is not proven, it is a theory.

Theory - not.meaning in the scientific sense either.


You can not use theories as rational proofs.
You can only use soundly proven premises, not those which beg the question and are mere assertions.

You're not as smart as you think you are- and you're not even as smart as THAT.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes: just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists. They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events. But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish. Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis. Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects. Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.

I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.

In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is. And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us

I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes: just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists. They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events. But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish. Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis. Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects. Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.

I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.

In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is. And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.

I don’t follow this: “ ‘chance' and/or mathematical probability’ "


There's nothing in my posts about this kind of thing, though, admittedly, I'm not sure precisely what you're talking about. I'm just guessing, but could you be referring to the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty?

The formulaic calculi of iinfinitesimalsare absolutes regarding the rational potentialities of existence, including material or immaterial existents.

At the simplest level, our immediate level of apprehension, the issue is the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive extrapolation directly intuited from the three fundamental laws of human thought.

This link touches on this: The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Well I'm not surprised that you don't follow it since you have consistently pointed out how ignorant, clueless, and uneducated I am and everybody else, except you and Justin of course, is.. And my comment was not directed at you but was specifically in response to another member's comment. And you simply aren't impressing me with all the overly grandiloquent verbiage that is both non sequitur and illogical within the context of the OP. So you might as well stop trying.

No one is trying to impress you. I write what I write as that's how I think and write. That’s the stuff I think about it. Those are the terms that go with it.

I've always admired your prose as it's accomplished. It never occurred to me to think you were trying to impress anybody.

I saw your comment and connected it to something I necessarily had to think about, though it's secondarily related, in a post I had just written in the above today. That's all. I saw what you said and conflated that with your comment. Autopilot. Click. Answer. I didn't realize until I saw your next post that it was never addressed to me. In fact, I did a double take, and ignorance does not mean stupid.


“ ‘chance' and/or mathematical probability’ " is related to “the position-momentum dichotomy” in my post and to the Heisenberg principle. They're all directly connected.

That's all that happened there. LOL! There would have been nothing at all unreasonable about you thinking that if it were directed at me. So I was just clarifying, not putting you down. On the contrary, the Heisenberg principle does invariably come into play with infinitesimals and the principle of identity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Also -

"Logicians" universally accepting TAG is a lie.

Also -

"Logicians" as an appeal to authority means nothing to me. Especially...and I mean this emphatically...IF YOURE ONE.

cuz if you've spent years studying logic and don't see the problem with tag, then I was smarter than you before I left grade school.

Its kind of sad, really. Spend years looking to affirm something that any non gullible tom dick or Jane can see is bullshit within the first four minutes of hearing it.


To recap:

We were created is not proven, it doesn't rise above theory.

Absolutes need to be "grounded" in a mind is not proven, it is a theory.

Theory - not.meaning in the scientific sense either.


You can not use theories as rational proofs.
You can only use soundly proven premises, not those which beg the question and are mere assertions.

You're not as smart as you think you are- and you're not even as smart as THAT.

All professional logicians, assuming they're worthy of that descriptor, do accept the fact of the cognition in and of itself. They have no choice, just like every other human being has no choice. You have no choice. I have no choice. It's axiomatically true.

Period.

As for #2 which goes to the question as to why this is so. The answer to that is between you, God or whatever. I have no interest in demonstrating anything further, nothing beyond the pertinent objective facts or the objectively pertinent potentialities regarding this topic.

The objective facts report, you decide

 

[G.T.]

"Of the cognition"

Do you even know what the fuck you're saying sometimes? Cuz to someone who speaks English.......no, no you don't.

 

[G.T.]

But anyways, very good. TAG is snake oil.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Also, are you saying that only real Christians believe things about the transcendent realm of being that, not only do not line up with scripture, but do not line up with the corresponding expressions of empirical phenomena? If the Bible is true, the expressions of the two respective realms of being should line up, albeit, with the created realm being a contingent foreshadowing of the transcendent. In short, what she doesn't comprehend in all of this, and neither do you, apparently, is that if she's right, the created realm is greater in terms of structural and expressional complexity than the realm of God.

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?

God reveals Himself in what He has impressed upon our minds, through scripture and through the cosmological order. He is infinitely greater and more complex than His creation!

Sorry. I can't read that stuff anymore. I'm saying that despite the fact that I perceive you to be a pompous, deluded jackass, I don't see those traits as commonly "Christian". Most of the Christians I know are decent people and many of them are highly intelligent and thoughtful.

Nah. You're just ignorant and closed-minded, always looking for the other shoe to drop instead of looking at the shoes that are already on your feet.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Of the cognition"

Do you even know what the fuck you're saying sometimes? Cuz to someone who speaks English.......no, no you don't.

Of course I do. I don't knowingly say things that aren't true: By the way, what's the problem? Are you missing the truly pompous ass QW?

cog·ni·tion ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/ noun noun: cognition the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. synonyms: perception, discernment, apprehension, learning, understanding, comprehension, insight;More reasoning, thinking, thought "the head injury has impaired his speech and cognition" [TBODY] [/TBODY] a result of this; a perception, sensation, notion

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[G.T.]

Nobody said they didn't know what cognition meant.

Just the way you used it was awkward as fuck.

"Fact of the cognition"


Herb a derp derp whaaaa?

"Logicians* do not accept 'tag' in any significant #.

Impossible.

I call bullshit, because even the simplest of the simple can see that tag is not a rational proof

 

[percysunshine]

.

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.

Any time you want to match science cred with me, just ask.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[
I am not discussing Henry and Lang in this context. I am discussing the improbability of authenticity based on what I have been reading for more than 2400 posts now. It requires a great deal of mental concentration and concentrated effort to change one's literary posting style. I am happy you have a Justin to follow you around and give you great praise and confirmation for posting a great deal of irrelevant and often illogical and even more incomprehensible wall of high sounding theological text apparently in an effort to impress. But the literary style morphed far too quickly into one thought, one concept, one conclusion within that same wall of text to be believable any longer.'
Again a good practical joke. Halloween, the time of year for practical jokes, is coming up soon. That part was well done. I'm just not buying it any more.

That's enough out your mealy mouth. Now let's talk about your pompous, hypocritical Pollyannaisms. You were perfectly okay with QW lying his off and insulting everyone who disagreed with him. So why are singling me out, especially given your snotty attitude? I didn't hear peep out of you over that.

You got any mirrors in you house?

You copped an attitude over free will as you slammed the door of your mind on everything else, which was fine with me 'til I started reading the innuendos pouring out from behind that false veneer of sweetness and light about my supposed impositions on God as you spout subjective mush as if they were absolutes from on high from that tinny, one-dimensional reality of yours in which you're buried up to your neck.

I don't do subjectivity. I do objectivity.

At least now you're talking about me to me, rather than about me to others.

You take your false accusations of pretentiousness, which is, in reality, your ignorance, and shove 'em. You have no justifiable grounds whatsoever to put that label on me. You're a journalist. I'm an apologist. The terms I use are correct, and precise, and that's all they are to me. The poisonous falsehoods about my supposed motive is your poison.

As for your talk about my supposed irrationality, you're outside your mind, but unfortunately not far enough outside of it to lift a single thought of mine off the ground, and it's not because you're stupid. You're just willfully incompetent. You've never bothered to back out of your paradigm long enough to objectively assess the validity of what I've expressed on this thread from my premise, not yours!

I've already told you that your premise won't work for what I talking about, but you heedlessly go on as if you were qualified to make a valid judgment from your perspective that is utterly clueless about the name of the foundation on which I'm standing. And perhaps because it is precisely your one-dimensional realty that I'm refuting, you've always got an opinion, but never an argument. If you don't grasp the first principles of the transcendental argument, then you don't know where I'm coming from, for it is the leading argument asserted in scripture. The other arguments are icing on the cake. God begins, not with a debate, but a declaration in our minds: I AM! The ultimate, universal Principle of Identity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nobody said they didn't know what cognition meant.

Just the way you used it was awkward as fuck.

"Fact of the cognition"


Herb a derp derp whaaaa?

"Logicians* do not accept 'tag' in any significant #.

Impossible.

I call bullshit, because even the simplest of the simple can see that tag is not a rational proof

Cognition is the correct term because it entails the various constituents of the acquisition and assimilation of knowledge: perception (sensory), apprehension, delineation/discernment, intuition, learning, comprehension. . . ..


cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: cognition

1. the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.

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.

Any time you want to match science cred with me, just ask.

.

Sounds like another challenge, not a discussion.