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

[M.D. Rawlings]

Summary Post - Part I

All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As divine consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (See Post #4194.).


Let us review:

It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

That's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound reductio ad absurdum of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.​

The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the subject-object dichotomy) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as the principle of identity): the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (See Posts #4195 and #4208).

Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator does exist!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Summary Post - Part II

Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of irrationalism, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.

In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.

These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on (1) the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against (2) the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (Post #3945).

Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number: (1) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in Post #4194), (2) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in Post #4195) and (3) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.

The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and, finally, those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (for any given A: A = A, which holds that any given existent of a single predicate may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction).

See Posts #2358, #2359, #2368 and #2405.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10024511/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10024527/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10025118/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10027061/​

Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are not, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.

The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

Hence, The Seven Things stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
_________________________________________

The Seven Things™
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/


The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/


Divine Sentience
#3918
#3919
#3920
#3921

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity



The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/.


The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.



Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/



The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 542 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 542 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 542 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 517 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh


Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 521 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .



The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 505 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Betty Boop Chronicles



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 499 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 506 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 492 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 466 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 474 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 455 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Irrationalists Mock Themselves



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 460 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Universal Principle of Human Relations: Most Atheists are Idiots


The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I



The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 527 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis




http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
Summary Post - Part I



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 543 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Summary Post - Part II

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Inevitable the Drama Queen

Inevitable: Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. Giggle It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. Giggle I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? Giggle I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, God, you know, God. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God and stuff just because. Giggle

I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. Giggle I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. Giggle

And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. Giggle

Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. Giggle I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? Giggle I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. Giggle Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. Giggle

Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? Giggle

I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. Giggle And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. Giggle And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is People. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. Giggle I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. Giggle I'm so cute and funny that way.

Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .

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

The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.

 

[dblack]

tl;dr

 

[BreezeWood]

Hence, God did not create the laws of logic. Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!

You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourselves at every turn.

Relativists.
LOL!

.
... bestowed on mankind!

you are a pathological delusionist endemic of self gratuitous idolatry before the Living Being, the Everlasting and the Triumphal Champion of Good vs Evil, The Almighty God.

.

BreezeWood: Noah created God and the Everlasting! Fairies wear boots.

.
... bestowed on mankind!

rawly's logic - - the supremacy of self gratuity ....

.

 

[Hollie]

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

The Seven Fraudulent Things™ that are demonstrably false for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded application of logic and reason as demonstrated by M. Pompous Rawling.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
I emailed two other Christian men who wanted to address JW elders.
I believe your conviction and calling is critical for reaching elders of each denomination
to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

Here is the email I wrote to Carey and David.
It has been several years since we last planned to address church elders,
because of issues that came up on a different religious forum.

I will also bring in the son of one of the ministers who had worked with Dr. King in Alabama.
Robert DuBose focuses on addressing people's inner fears,
the same way I focus on areas of forgiveness or unforgiveness and my friend Olivia helps
people pray to remove these blockages by receiving forgiveness to heal and transform their lives.

I believe with the right teamwork and backing, you can present your points
and will be understood by more people. But not with conflicts, fear, and unforgiveness in the way.

I don't understand why you cannot see this is the major part of the process
of reaching understanding of God through Christ, but I will bring in people to back you up
so these problems don't keep causing stumbling blocks and obstructions.

You are so focused on the goal, you cannot see the process.

Here is the email. Happy Thankgsgiving and may these teams come forward
to bring more hearts and minds united together in agreement by Christmas. Amen.
------------------------------------------
Dear Carey and David:
I hope you are your ministries and church communities are doing well.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your families!

I have some hopeful good news.
Two men on usmessageboard.com really want to challenge people to come to terms
with recognizing God as creator and source of all knowledge.
They both support the TAG approach to proving God must exist for knowledge
to exist, but atheists and some other theists do not agree with this self-defining presentation of God.

Can I PLEASE ask your help to consult with these
men, who both believe in the Trinity, and to organize
a presentation for a website online to ask for an agreement
with church elders on God and the Trinity?

Their names are Justin Davis who is a layman, plumber and everyday Christian.
And M.D. Rawlings an NCO veteran who is a more trained or experienced theologian
making very sophisticated statements and arguments going over most people's heads.

Here is the thread, Please excuse M.D. getting frustrated and saying rude things to
people who do not understand his spiritual mission or calling to keep pushing these points.
He summarized these as
1. We exist and have knowledge
2. For knowledge to exist, God must exist
3. Therefore God exists and to deny this causes contradiction with the other two points
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 543 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I suggest we adhere to the Trinity and the Two Great Commandments
and New Commandment Jesus gave in John 13:34
but they keep pushing the TAG points as 7 principles or 3 unrefutable points.
These are on the thread.

May I PLEASE ask your help as peers
that M.D. might respect as his equals.

He will not listen to those he considers less in understanding.
But since you believe in calling the JW elders and others to a consensus
on the Bible, God and Christ, I believe you can communicate
and work with M.D. so we can set up a formal website
inviting all church elders to join in forming an agreement in Christ on God's truth.

Thank you and Amen
Yours truly,
Emily
my new number is
713 820 5130
can I please call you
I am ready to set up a Spiritual Senate to address
both religious and political conflict to reach consensus in Christ.

the three points I offered to focus on for a Consensus on God through Christ
1. the TAG proof with the above team, to reach agreement on definitions
and meaning of God and the Holy Trinity by all religious groups and leaders
2. using science to prove which methods of spiritual healing are natural
effective and lifesaving, and which are fraudulent and cause harm.
3. applying forgiveness to bring healing and correction to all relations
to solve specific political and religious conflicts to build the Kingdom of God in the real world

 

[emilynghiem]

... bestowed on mankind!

rawly's logic - - the supremacy of self gratuity ....

.

Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.

The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
and attached to a position less than perfect,
is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.

So how are you any better or worse than M.D.

Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.

would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?

go ahead.

If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
and let M.D. post his.

I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth

much easier to point to your neighbor

perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly

I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science

are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that

Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
is that why you avoid it?

would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural

here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
Storm - Tim Minchin music and video

if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.

Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a fucking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I've recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

Everyones just staring at me now,
But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:

“Life is full of mystery, yeah
But there are answers out there
And they won't be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn't life mysterious?
Let's sit here and hope
Let's call up the fucking Pope
Let's go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra

If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool
because every time there's a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
Throughout history
Every mystery
Ever solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

Does the idea that there might be truth
Frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
So blow your hippy noodle
That you would rather just stand in the fog
Of your inability to Google?

Isn't this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
If you're so into Shakespeare
Lend me your ear:

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet… is just fucking silly”
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?!
I see trees of Green,
Red roses too,
And fine, if you wish to
Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
In a post-colonial, condescending
Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
Then whatever, that's ok.

But here's what gives me a hard-on:
I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short
And unimportant…
But thanks to recent scientific advances
I get to live twice as long
As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine
Of sharing curries and getting shitty
With good-looking hippies
With fairies on their spines
And butterflies on their titties.

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you'll change your mind.

 

[emilynghiem]

Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity

Hi M.D. Rawlings I will also call in Irish Ram to see if that will help get us on the same page here.

in the meantime, what do you list as preexisting before God and what did God create?
Can you please show where you draw the line

I think you said that knowledge and logic were preexisting before God

But creation, laws of science within creation, God created that, right?

Also where did the relativist and materialist people come into play.

Did God create atheists to think in nontheistic terms for a good purpose?
Is there a higher purpose for these that came before God, or after God, or not made by God but corrupted by other influences or choices.
Where did evil or ignorance come into play?
Did God create the forces going against truth or did those come from elsewhere

Can you please list out the timeline of
what was already in place before God and what was created by God.

Thanks!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More news from the other thread: [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10251424/.You'll']http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10251424/[/URL]. You'll want to tune in your tinfoil hats for this one, nitwits!


The Wire - Associated Press: Taz declares the greatest scientific feat in history!

More tiresome ignorance from a know-nothing atheist. Prebiotic, monomeric precursors cannot and do not form the polymers of biology, let alone form any self-ordering structures of replication above the polymerization level of prebiotic chemistry. Professional scientists in prebiotic chemistry know this. The self-ordering properties of mere chemistry coupled with the physical laws of nature have never been observed to produce anything whatsoever above the infrastructural-level of ontology. Ever! The value of prebiotic chemistry (abiogenetic research) serves the enterprise of microbiological engineering only, and there are many creationist and ID scientists doing research in prebiotic chemistry.

Closed minded? What do you know about the science? Abiogenesis is no longer about demonstrating the actuality of nature producing life on its own, but about what prebiotic, monomeric precursors were available to the primordial world and about how the other indispensable prebiotic, monomeric precursors came to be.

Abiogenesis is not a theory, you ignoramus. It's a mere hypothesis and nothing more.

Theory?!

Look everybody. First, the mindless atheists/relativists of the USMB make the manifestly false claim that the theological axioms of human psychology hold that everything was created, including knowledge, apparently, beginning with logic. What philosophical or theological system of thought in history has ever asserted the imbecilic notion that divinity created everything? So according to some atheists/relativists, the theological axioms of human psychology hold that divinity didn't have the knowledge and the logic it needed in order to create the knowledge and the logic it needed until it created the knowledge and the logic it needed in order to create the knowledge and the logic it needed until it created the knowledge and the logic it needed. . . .

The egg! No! The chicken! No! The egg! No! The chicken! Fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!

Are most atheists (1) imbeciles or (2) what?

Answer: Door number one!

Now, we have an atheist making the amazing claim that the Pasteurian theory of omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life has been overthrown. When did that happen? Stop the presses! This is big news! This is a scientific breakthrough on the order of the discovery of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics! No wait! What am I talking about? This is a major story on the order of landing the first man on the moon! No wait! Landing the first man on the moon? What am I talking about? Taz has declared the greatest scientific feat in history!

Got ?

 

[BreezeWood]

... bestowed on mankind!

rawly's logic - - the supremacy of self gratuity ....

.

Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.

The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
and attached to a position less than perfect,
is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.

So how are you any better or worse than M.D.

Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.

would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?

go ahead.

If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
and let M.D. post his.

I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth

much easier to point to your neighbor

perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly

I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science

are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that

Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
is that why you avoid it?

would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural

here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
Storm - Tim Minchin music and video

if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.

Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a fucking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I've recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

Everyones just staring at me now,
But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:

“Life is full of mystery, yeah
But there are answers out there
And they won't be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn't life mysterious?
Let's sit here and hope
Let's call up the fucking Pope
Let's go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra

If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool
because every time there's a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
Throughout history
Every mystery
Ever solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

Does the idea that there might be truth
Frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
So blow your hippy noodle
That you would rather just stand in the fog
Of your inability to Google?

Isn't this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
If you're so into Shakespeare
Lend me your ear:

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet… is just fucking silly”
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?!
I see trees of Green,
Red roses too,
And fine, if you wish to
Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
In a post-colonial, condescending
Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
Then whatever, that's ok.

But here's what gives me a hard-on:
I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short
And unimportant…
But thanks to recent scientific advances
I get to live twice as long
As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine
Of sharing curries and getting shitty
With good-looking hippies
With fairies on their spines
And butterflies on their titties.

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you'll change your mind.

.

christian: I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

christian: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

- at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.


... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

correctly stated, sinner - prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.

.

 

[Boss]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

 

[emilynghiem]

... bestowed on mankind!

rawly's logic - - the supremacy of self gratuity ....

.

Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.

The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
and attached to a position less than perfect,
is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.

So how are you any better or worse than M.D.

Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.

would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?

go ahead.

If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
and let M.D. post his.

I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth

much easier to point to your neighbor

perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly

I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science

are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that

Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
is that why you avoid it?

would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural

here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
Storm - Tim Minchin music and video

if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.

Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a fucking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I've recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

Everyones just staring at me now,
But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:

“Life is full of mystery, yeah
But there are answers out there
And they won't be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn't life mysterious?
Let's sit here and hope
Let's call up the fucking Pope
Let's go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra

If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool
because every time there's a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
Throughout history
Every mystery
Ever solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

Does the idea that there might be truth
Frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
So blow your hippy noodle
That you would rather just stand in the fog
Of your inability to Google?

Isn't this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
If you're so into Shakespeare
Lend me your ear:

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet… is just fucking silly”
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?!
I see trees of Green,
Red roses too,
And fine, if you wish to
Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
In a post-colonial, condescending
Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
Then whatever, that's ok.

But here's what gives me a hard-on:
I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short
And unimportant…
But thanks to recent scientific advances
I get to live twice as long
As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine
Of sharing curries and getting shitty
With good-looking hippies
With fairies on their spines
And butterflies on their titties.

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you'll change your mind.

.

christian: I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

christian: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

- at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.


... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

correctly stated, sinner - prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.

View attachment 34456

.

Ok BreezeWood I challenge you to the Bullring on that. This is great!
Spiritual Healing is easier to form a consensus on than TAG which will follow in turn as a consequence.

[BTW Scott Peck was a Christian when he DIDN'T believe in Satan or deliverance prayer as real either. So he as a Christian had to go through this same process you are of not believing until you see proof. So even CHRISTIANS don't believe this, and that is why the knowledge is so suppressed. Francis MacNutt pointed this out in his book, that the worst enemy to Spiritual Healing and knowledge is the church itself that has suppressed this because they want to keep it faith based and don't want science to prove it out of fear people will depend on science. Dossey and Matthews also found out the fundamental Christians were just as opposed to scientific research on prayer and some even prayed for the studies to fail.

BreezeWood the enemy is not Christians, it is fear and unforgiveness which you can find in Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Constitutionalists. The people who FORGIVE and aren't afraid to reach agreement on truth are all these denominations, too. My friend Ray who is a gay atheist does more to teach Christians about forgiveness who don't get it; he understands free grace better than some of them do. Forgiveness is the key, not religion.]

BreezeWood I think the point on prayer and spiritual healing is a better focus to unite around:
Even Buddhists and Scientists have found benefits in prayer as universal.

I am guessing you mean some kind of false ritual or state of illusion or delusion confused with real prayer and meditation
that clears the mind.

Since you may require scientific consensus on this, I'm willing to make that 10 million dollar bet that spiritual healing through deep forgiveness therapy and prayer is effective natural safe and consistent/demonstrated with science, and the false fraud type of faithhealing can be exposed and exp l ained in the process by comparison to teach the difference.

The difference is the degree of forgiveness.

BreezeWood since I don't blame you for not understanding what hasn't been proven yet, i'm willing to raise the money and resources online to set up the research first. at any point you change your mind, and decide there is validity and good purpose for this healing prayer, I'd like to see how you explain it in your own words. I think that is worth 10 million, because it will help other people.

This will also help M.D. who doesn't quite get that the focus on Spiritual Healing first will help resolve issues and form a consensus around TAG as a consequence.

So I will make it a double challenge to you and to M.D. at the same time.
A. you don't think there is any form of prayer that has a positive purpose
so I am willing to set up scientific research studies to show the DIFFERENCE
between the effective type of healing based on forgiveness therapy and prayer
AND the reason the false faith healing prayer FAILS because there is no change
in forgiveness involved. The same research may also prove why the NEGATIVE
or dark forces of occult/magic CLASH and disrupt or block the positive healing process
B. M.D. wants to keep pushing TAG and does not see the need or benefit of
focusing on Spiritual Healing and science first, where agreements on TAG will follow.
Again because of the Forgiveness factor.

So in the end, this will show that the process really depends on Forgiveness
to open up the process to cast out FEAR that is blocking people from common understanding.

So I will challenge both you and M.D. on this.

If you have any revisions to make to the statements, please post.
I tried to give you an out, BreezeWood, by distinguishing the difference
between the natural effective healing prayer and the false type.

but if you REALLY want to stick your foot in your mouth
and say ALL forms of prayer are false, I will include that statement if you wish.
I wouldn't go that far, if I were you, but I would recommend leaving it open
there are both false practices and truly natural effective methods, so you are half right.

If you stick to absolutes, then you are committing the same faults you oppose.
So you will get a second strike if you attack MD for being absolutist
when you did this yourself, stuck with absolutes when you could have left room for
both outcomes instead of negating ALL forms of prayer as false absolutely.

That's a separate contradiction, BreezeWood, I hope you don't go that far, but oh well!

 

[emilynghiem]

correctly stated, sinner - prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.

View attachment 34456

.

Then why did Thich Nhat Hanh write a whole book on the Energy of Prayer as a Buddhist:

In order to understand why people pray, The Energy of Prayer examines the applications and effectiveness of prayer in Buddhist and other spiritual traditions. Arguing that prayer is not about asking some external force for what we need, but about creating an internal environment in which it is easier to get what we want, the book introduces several methods of prayer. These methods are meditative in nature and reenvision prayer as an inclusive, accessible practice that is not tied to a particular religious or spiritual affiliation, but rather that can help anyone create a healthy life through the power of awareness and intention. Ultimately, author Thich Nhat Hanh presents prayer as more than just relaxation: is it a way to satisfy the basic human need to make a connection with something larger than our everyday self. Included are visualization and breathing exercises as well as a rich sampling of prayers, chants, and invocations from the Buddhist tradition.

The Energy of Prayer How to Deepen Your Spiritual Practice Thich Nhat Hanh Larry Dossey 9781888375558 Amazon.com Books

Why did the studies on prayer by Larry Dossey show this is a universal process in the brain
regardless if people are atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Christian or other faiths: the brain goes into the same state.

Why are you saying this is just Christian when Buddhists respect and practice the same process?

 

[Hollie]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

There seems to be a consistent pattern of religious zealots using their particular gawds / inventions of gawds to issue cheap threats on their behalf.

Do you people really have no use for theses gawds other than to cause them to be the bullies and thugs you're too ineffectual to be?

 

[emilynghiem]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

There seems to be a consistent pattern of religious zealots using their particular gawds / inventions of gawds to issue cheap threats on their behalf.

Do you people really have no use for theses gawds other than to cause them to be the bullies and thugs you're too ineffectual to be?

Dear Hollie
It may be male territorial behavior.
I know someone out of a job due to
Clashes between two alpha males.
Only one per harem, or they split and
form separate packs if they can't submit to the same king of the hill.
Woof woof woof bark bark bark
yap yap yap, lapdogs and pack mentality.

And we think we are above material
instincts. Bunch of frightened animals
guarding their turf from competing tribes.

Beating on chests to be the bigger he man.

 

[emilynghiem]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

Dear Boss
I think your and BreezeWood approach to the Almighty aligns closer to Buddhists and others who see the Creation as a whole, with no beginning and no end

And MD Justin and Christians like them tend to focus on the point at which man became aware of God and our will in relation to Godswill.

So the Christians may focus on a representation of the timeline from awareness of God to the falling away from natural laws peace and order to the process of reconciling our will and restoring balance between peace and freedom for equal justice.

These are not supposed to be in conflict but should reconcile in the process of establishing truth and justice for peace.

MD timeline and focus is set up differently totell the same story. The story is the same but not being told in the same person.

He cannot see your angle either.
I can see parts of both of yours from where I am coming from. I think you may be closer to BW and I connect more with MD. Together we cover more ground. Even if these don't capture the whole thing, we each catch parts the other approaches miss. We need all these to cover all areas.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Universal Principle of Human Relations


Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at. We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews. We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case. Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence: Judeo-Christianity or Islam. These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.

Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation. This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who are willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who are willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things. But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.

Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is nature, not God.

The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought is invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.

 

[Hollie]

The Universal Principle of Human Relations


Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at. We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews. We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case. Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence: Judeo-Christianity or Islam. These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.

Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation. This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who are willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who are willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things. But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.

Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is nature, not God.

The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought is invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.

Umm, sorry Bunky. There's nothing logical about belief in supermagical gawds.

The nature of the religious zealot is invariably one of low self-esteem, lower IQ.