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

[Boss]

Can we work in teams.
Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.

How about one team where Hollie and I, you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.

And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
on this spiritual healing prayer business.

My theory is that for both focus points
whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.

Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.

Dear Emily, I do not need to be on a team for the purpose of respecting the views of others. I am not the one with a problem respecting the views of others. I can respect your view while disagreeing with you and that is often what I do here. I am afraid you misinterpret my posting style, so let me explain how this works... I am like a mirror, you get a reflection of what you put in front of it. Converse with me respectfully and cordially and that's what you get in return. Attack me with personal insults, that's what you're going to get back from me. Pick a fight and I am not backing down. You want to interpret this as me disrespecting the views of others, and that isn't so. Myself and GT do not agree on God, our opinions are as different as night and day, but I respect his opinion and he respects mine. I can think he is wrong without insulting him or attacking his views, and he can do the same for me, so we don't have a problem. Still, there may be times in the "heat of battle" where we call each other idiots or something, but it's rare.

I honestly do understand what you are trying to do here, but I think yours is a futile effort. The strategy of forming workgroups and teams is useful when everyone is trying to achieve a common goal. Here, you do not have such a dynamic, whether you fool yourself into thinking that or not. You have various people who have their own agenda, their own goal, and they are not interested in consensus with others as you are. So you will constantly have some who try to bully or cajole others, people who will use insult and ridicule, appeal to popularity, or find fault and disagreement when there really isn't any... whatever it takes to further their agenda. Your efforts are never going to change this dynamic, as noble as they are.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can we work in teams.
Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.

How about one team where Hollie and I, you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.

And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
on this spiritual healing prayer business.

My theory is that for both focus points
whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.

Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.

Dear Emily, I do not need to be on a team for the purpose of respecting the views of others. I am not the one with a problem respecting the views of others. I can respect your view while disagreeing with you and that is often what I do here. I am afraid you misinterpret my posting style, so let me explain how this works... I am like a mirror, you get a reflection of what you put in front of it. Converse with me respectfully and cordially and that's what you get in return. Attack me with personal insults, that's what you're going to get back from me. Pick a fight and I am not backing down. You want to interpret this as me disrespecting the views of others, and that isn't so. Myself and GT do not agree on God, our opinions are as different as night and day, but I respect his opinion and he respects mine. I can think he is wrong without insulting him or attacking his views, and he can do the same for me, so we don't have a problem. Still, there may be times in the "heat of battle" where we call each other idiots or something, but it's rare.

I honestly do understand what you are trying to do here, but I think yours is a futile effort. The strategy of forming workgroups and teams is useful when everyone is trying to achieve a common goal. Here, you do not have such a dynamic, whether you fool yourself into thinking that or not. You have various people who have their own agenda, their own goal, and they are not interested in consensus with others as you are. So you will constantly have some who try to bully or cajole others, people who will use insult and ridicule, appeal to popularity, or find fault and disagreement when there really isn't any... whatever it takes to further their agenda. Your efforts are never going to change this dynamic, as noble as they are.

I challenge you on that, Boss.
I do believe that scientific studies on spiritual healing
will bring out the common knowledge of forgiveness and impact on health and relationships.

If what you say is true, if you are a mirror.
Then if I seek consensus, you would mirror this also.

so Boss if you do not seek consensus, then that is half the reason why you are not getting it.
It is equally your choice to ask for, or to insist upon, instead of blaming others for why it isn't sought.

I think you and Hollie are either big enough or stubborn enough to push for consensus by scientific study.
We'll see who gives up first.
Again, I am always caught by surprise.
The people I least suspect sometimes pull through
and the ones I thought were stronger cave in and cower, cut and run, blaming someone else.

M.D. surprised me when he posted he believed in spiritual healing, and even lectured me a bit
about not mixing religious agenda in but keeping it pure science. caught me off guard!

BW caught me off guard rejecting prayer in absolute terms. I am still floored
and think I must have miscommunicated because that makes no sense.

Hollie turned out to have a sense of humor about these things,
while you seem least able to cope, when I thought you had the best grasp of anyone here.

so we'll see, if this goes like usual, it will be the person I least suspected
who agrees to set up the proof of spiritual healing by applying science.

you, who I thought was focused and convicted enough to carry through
appear to want to bail out and blame the lack of consensus on the lack on other people's parts.
so if that is your way of surprising me, I should not be disappointed but should have seen it coming.

 

[Boss]

Can we work in teams.
Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.

How about one team where Hollie and I, you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.

And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
on this spiritual healing prayer business.

My theory is that for both focus points
whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.

Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.

Dear Emily, I do not need to be on a team for the purpose of respecting the views of others. I am not the one with a problem respecting the views of others. I can respect your view while disagreeing with you and that is often what I do here. I am afraid you misinterpret my posting style, so let me explain how this works... I am like a mirror, you get a reflection of what you put in front of it. Converse with me respectfully and cordially and that's what you get in return. Attack me with personal insults, that's what you're going to get back from me. Pick a fight and I am not backing down. You want to interpret this as me disrespecting the views of others, and that isn't so. Myself and GT do not agree on God, our opinions are as different as night and day, but I respect his opinion and he respects mine. I can think he is wrong without insulting him or attacking his views, and he can do the same for me, so we don't have a problem. Still, there may be times in the "heat of battle" where we call each other idiots or something, but it's rare.

I honestly do understand what you are trying to do here, but I think yours is a futile effort. The strategy of forming workgroups and teams is useful when everyone is trying to achieve a common goal. Here, you do not have such a dynamic, whether you fool yourself into thinking that or not. You have various people who have their own agenda, their own goal, and they are not interested in consensus with others as you are. So you will constantly have some who try to bully or cajole others, people who will use insult and ridicule, appeal to popularity, or find fault and disagreement when there really isn't any... whatever it takes to further their agenda. Your efforts are never going to change this dynamic, as noble as they are.

I challenge you on that, Boss.
I do believe that scientific studies on spiritual healing
will bring out the common knowledge of forgiveness and impact on health and relationships.

If what you say is true, if you are a mirror.
Then if I seek consensus, you would mirror this also.

so Boss if you do not seek consensus, then that is half the reason why you are not getting it.
It is equally your choice to ask for, or to insist upon, instead of blaming others for why it isn't sought.

I think you and Hollie are either big enough or stubborn enough to push for consensus by scientific study.
We'll see who gives up first.
Again, I am always caught by surprise.
The people I least suspect sometimes pull through
and the ones I thought were stronger cave in and cower, cut and run, blaming someone else.

M.D. surprised me when he posted he believed in spiritual healing, and even lectured me a bit
about not mixing religious agenda in but keeping it pure science. caught me off guard!

BW caught me off guard rejecting prayer in absolute terms. I am still floored
and think I must have miscommunicated because that makes no sense.

Hollie turned out to have a sense of humor about these things,
while you seem least able to cope, when I thought you had the best grasp of anyone here.

so we'll see, if this goes like usual, it will be the person I least suspected
who agrees to set up the proof of spiritual healing by applying science.

you, who I thought was focused and convicted enough to carry through
appear to want to bail out and blame the lack of consensus on the lack on other people's parts.
so if that is your way of surprising me, I should not be disappointed but should have seen it coming.

Least able to cope? Not sure where you got that. Bail? On what, exactly? I just don't believe you are ever going to reach consensus on matters pertaining to God and people's beliefs in God. Especially here, where you also have people who don't believe in any God. You are trying to be a Cat Herder, Emily. There is a reason we have thousands of religions and religious beliefs. If people were able to reach consensus, don't you think they would have done so by now?

But hey... In the spirit of not letting you be disappointed in me, I'll play along here. Put me on a team and tell me what you want me to do... You want me to forgive? Okay, I hereby forgive all those who have attacked me personally in this thread for my beliefs. I apologize for attacking you back and hope that we can work together for consensus. Happy now?

 

[emilynghiem]

Can we work in teams.
Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.

How about one team where Hollie and I, you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.

And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
on this spiritual healing prayer business.

My theory is that for both focus points
whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.

Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.

Dear Emily, I do not need to be on a team for the purpose of respecting the views of others. I am not the one with a problem respecting the views of others. I can respect your view while disagreeing with you and that is often what I do here. I am afraid you misinterpret my posting style, so let me explain how this works... I am like a mirror, you get a reflection of what you put in front of it. Converse with me respectfully and cordially and that's what you get in return. Attack me with personal insults, that's what you're going to get back from me. Pick a fight and I am not backing down. You want to interpret this as me disrespecting the views of others, and that isn't so. Myself and GT do not agree on God, our opinions are as different as night and day, but I respect his opinion and he respects mine. I can think he is wrong without insulting him or attacking his views, and he can do the same for me, so we don't have a problem. Still, there may be times in the "heat of battle" where we call each other idiots or something, but it's rare.

I honestly do understand what you are trying to do here, but I think yours is a futile effort. The strategy of forming workgroups and teams is useful when everyone is trying to achieve a common goal. Here, you do not have such a dynamic, whether you fool yourself into thinking that or not. You have various people who have their own agenda, their own goal, and they are not interested in consensus with others as you are. So you will constantly have some who try to bully or cajole others, people who will use insult and ridicule, appeal to popularity, or find fault and disagreement when there really isn't any... whatever it takes to further their agenda. Your efforts are never going to change this dynamic, as noble as they are.

I challenge you on that, Boss.
I do believe that scientific studies on spiritual healing
will bring out the common knowledge of forgiveness and impact on health and relationships.

If what you say is true, if you are a mirror.
Then if I seek consensus, you would mirror this also.

so Boss if you do not seek consensus, then that is half the reason why you are not getting it.
It is equally your choice to ask for, or to insist upon, instead of blaming others for why it isn't sought.

I think you and Hollie are either big enough or stubborn enough to push for consensus by scientific study.
We'll see who gives up first.
Again, I am always caught by surprise.
The people I least suspect sometimes pull through
and the ones I thought were stronger cave in and cower, cut and run, blaming someone else.

M.D. surprised me when he posted he believed in spiritual healing, and even lectured me a bit
about not mixing religious agenda in but keeping it pure science. caught me off guard!

BW caught me off guard rejecting prayer in absolute terms. I am still floored
and think I must have miscommunicated because that makes no sense.

Hollie turned out to have a sense of humor about these things,
while you seem least able to cope, when I thought you had the best grasp of anyone here.

so we'll see, if this goes like usual, it will be the person I least suspected
who agrees to set up the proof of spiritual healing by applying science.

you, who I thought was focused and convicted enough to carry through
appear to want to bail out and blame the lack of consensus on the lack on other people's parts.
so if that is your way of surprising me, I should not be disappointed but should have seen it coming.

Least able to cope? Not sure where you got that. Bail? On what, exactly? I just don't believe you are ever going to reach consensus on matters pertaining to God and people's beliefs in God. Especially here, where you also have people who don't believe in any God. You are trying to be a Cat Herder, Emily. There is a reason we have thousands of religions and religious beliefs. If people were able to reach consensus, don't you think they would have done so by now?

But hey... In the spirit of not letting you be disappointed in me, I'll play along here. Put me on a team and tell me what you want me to do... You want me to forgive? Okay, I hereby forgive all those who have attacked me personally in this thread for my beliefs. I apologize for attacking you back and hope that we can work together for consensus. Happy now?

Boss, there isn't a button for hugs, but you really made me laugh!
You are so great. I was worried you were going to bail out on me and leave me to piece this consensus together without you to help stand up to M.D.

Boss we've never had the internet and the collection of people to Organize in teams.
Now we do.

so of course this has never been tried before.
Thanks for your willingness to forgive, including me when I said things wrong that offended or misrepresented you when that wasn't my intent.

The three focus points I suggested was
1. one team of elders from all churches to form a consensus on TAG, God and the Trinity in every religion.
so to align all the key points and principles even if they aren't perfectly the same.
2. one team to focus on the science part and spiritual healing.
I think I need the most help here,
though you'd be good to consult on both
3. one team to apply the spiritual healing and forgiveness demonstrated in #2
to concrete real life situations to prove this works globally:
this can be anything from solving the ISIS or Boko Haram issues,
the issues in China with forced abortions slave labor or torturing bears for their bile,
we can start with resolving issues between Republican and Democrat party leaders
or gangs involved with trafficking drugs or people across borders.
Some of my friends are already ready to take on #3
but most people can't even get past #2.

And M.D. is still so in love with TAG in #1 he isn't interested in #2.
But I think that is the key to solving world problems in #3.
So if you are really going to prove the message in the Bible is true,
and all humanity can be saved by healing grace in Christ Jesus,
then I would be prepared to take it all the way through.

I think you'd be good to help set up #1 where M.D. prefers to focus
but I'd really really appreciate your help to consult on #2 which has more real world
applications and would make sense to more secular gentiles and nontheists than #1.

Thank you Boss!

I am guessing, once we even agree how to set up #2 the study and
proof of spiritual healing using medical research and regular science,
this process will take off on its own. And again, it will
end up going in directions I didn't foresee, that always happens.
Some of it will end up easier than I thought, and then there
are always surprises where there is more to it than I expected.

Never been done before.

But I did meet a statistician at a Lutheran church who loved
the idea and thought this was totally doable. To track the
correlation of forgiveness with reconciling vs. the degree
of unforgiveness with inability to reconcile. So we could
prove that this is the key factor in spiritual healing, not only
applied to physical and mental conditions, but healing relations as well.

As for organizing consensus among tribes, I already know
people who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Atheists in the
peace and justice community who work together. My proposal
is to form a consensus that Christ Jesus means Restorative
Justice or Peace and Justice, equal justice, so similar to
TAG everyone can align around common terms. I will ask
my friends if we could write out a statement, and maybe
consult with you and M.D. how to present this and ask others
to join in teams to form a consensus on how to teach by alignment.

 

[Boss]

2. one team to focus on the science part and spiritual healing.

Here is what I believe your biggest obstacle is, and it's a doozie. Those who do not believe in spiritual nature will not accept spiritual evidence. You'll never convince them the evidence suggests any healing is spiritual. It is not possible to prove things which are spiritual through physical sciences. We can only verify and confirm that an unusual or unexpected phenomenon happened, we can't substantiate the cause was spiritual. Things that are spiritual in nature do not have placeholders in science because science is the study of our physical universe. Mixing the two is problematic, especially for those who have rejected the existence of spiritual nature.

 

[Inevitable]

I am speaking from the Islamic perspective.
The proof that God exists is His act. Like footprints indicate a walker, His act indicates His existence. The rain that comes from the sky, the constellations of the Zodiac and the vast pathways above you in the sky point to the existence of a unique Almighty God.

I respect that, and if that is what you believe proves God exists to you, more power to you. But it isn't enough to prove God exists.

 

[Hollie]

2. one team to focus on the science part and spiritual healing.

Here is what I believe your biggest obstacle is, and it's a doozie. Those who do not believe in spiritual nature will not accept spiritual evidence. You'll never convince them the evidence suggests any healing is spiritual. It is not possible to prove things which are spiritual through physical sciences. We can only verify and confirm that an unusual or unexpected phenomenon happened, we can't substantiate the cause was spiritual. Things that are spiritual in nature do not have placeholders in science because science is the study of our physical universe. Mixing the two is problematic, especially for those who have rejected the existence of spiritual nature.

I'm going to pass on to you some knowledge That I have heretofore kept from the public. In my spare time I have developed the discipline of Spiritual Science™ as the means by which we can examine spiritual nature.

Those who do not believe in Spiritual Science™ will not accept the science of the spiritual but exists, it does. As we know, It is not possible to prove things which are spiritual through physical sciences. We can only verify and confirm that an unusual or unexpected phenomenon happened, we can't substantiate the cause was spiritual.

Verily, we now have the means and methods to examine the phenomenon of "spiritual nature" through the methods I've developed within Spiritual Science™.

If you will be so kind as to pm me your credit card information, I will send you an information packet with everything you need to begin your investigation of Spiritual Science™. This is a limited time offer so you must act soon. Plus, if you place your order in the next ten minutes, we'll double your order, just pay for additional processing and handling.

 

[BreezeWood]

they have an aversion against practical application and verifications ...

.

Hi BreezeWood and Hollie:

So how about the idea of using science to demonstrate spiritual healing
where a pattern or process can be shown and it can be replicated and applied consistently
in keeping with medical therapies and treatments, to facilitate health and healing.

M.D. said he agreed that science should be the focus and not religion if this is going to be done right.
Inevitable asked for evidence if anyone is expected to believe something.
I agree with both.

Are we in agreement to set this up then?

.

E: where a pattern or process can be shown and it can be replicated and applied consistently ...

Emily, is planting a tree the same as poisoning the ground to build a house ?

is that praying ...

.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: where a pattern or process can be shown and it can be replicated and applied consistently ...


Emily, is planting a tree the same as poisoning the ground to build a house ?

is that praying ...

.

No that is not praying, but thanks BreezeWood, you bring up a great analogy that can be used to explain the difference!

1. the effective type of prayer is digging out the obstructions in the ground, so that the roots and tree can naturally grow.
if the plant is wilting because of obstruction, the prayer and meditation is used to (a) identify where the block is happening and (b) to root it out, to agree to let go and forgive and remove the obstruction (and c to replicate the process, if there is more obstruction found, then keep removing more and more blockage, so there is room for more and more growth, etc.)

2. the false praying is just talking to or watering the plant, wondering why nothing is changing. you can water the plant all you want, but if the roots are blocked or they are eaten up by fungus, the water isn't getting to the plant and it is wilting. No amount of watering on the outside is going to change the blockage on the inside, and the lack of results is why many people lose their faith. they didn't do the internal work, so the efforts failed and they think it is useless and false.

3. the evil type of poison is what i would equate with witchcraft, spiritism, occult, sorcery, voodoo, dark magic. So instead of watering the plant with water, if you are pouring gasoline
or some other toxin on it instead, you are going to get negative results or even kill it off.

BreezeWood the same doctor who studied positive prayer also studied the Hawaiian death curse,
and found that the "creeping paralysis" even occurred in target victims who didn't know they were the target of the curse.

that kind of evil ill will and retribution is toxic, and can cause death, and is the OPPOSITE of the lifegiving energy that is released and received by forgiveness prayer for healing.

BW in the book "The Healing Light" by Agnes Sanford, who taught Francis MacNutt and many of the other spiritual healing leaders still teaching today, she describes God as Nature and the point of prayer is to turn on this natural life energy and open up the circuits to let it flow through fully. As our minds and bodies are designed to self-heal and to recover from obstructions.

she compared it to an iron or household appliance, that we have to make sure the electric circuits are flowing, the cord is plugged in, and the switch is turned on or the appliance won't work.

we use prayer and meditation to find where the disconnect is that is blocking the good will and life energy or love from flowing, then we remedy the blockage or remove it, and then we can use that energy that is naturally given by life or nature.

Even Buddha used this method when he first received true wisdom and became enlightened; he had to first "let go" and forgive all the past striving and ways he tried before, and only when he removed all those expectations and conditions from his mind, emptied himself out, did he receive the universal truth that was always there by default. it was blocked because he was holding on to false conditions that were obstructing his view and understanding.