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

[Hollie]

It seems M. Pompous Rawling is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.

So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds. .

I find it comical that you denizens of magical spirit realms believe you're in a position to condemn those who reject your nonsensical claims to utterly unsupported supernaturalism.

I think that the problem you religious extremists have with rationality is that you perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as fear, emotions, superstitions, thus you feel reason is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. The keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason, otherwise, humanity would never have left Dark Ages thinking that people like you have never let go of.

I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong. You're like that. You're close-minded and ignorant and with little imagination, you're left to living in trembling fear of angry gawds.

I don’t see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human fears and emotions have always had their source in natural instincts. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. So I don’t see that accepting rationality strips life of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. That you religious zealots choose to see existence as governed by magic and supernaturalism is an unfortunate throwback and a disservice to humanity.

 

[Boss]

[Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever know truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can know truth is God.

 

[Hollie]

[Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever know truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can know truth is God.

And, Zeus as god of the gods will lead us to ultimate twoof.

 

[sealybobo]

No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.

You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.

Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.

All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?

We are not reading the same theory of evolution.

Did you see that dogs are getting A LOT smarter? It is no surprise. Not only do the smarter dogs do better as far as breeding goes, it only makes sense that their intelligence would be accelerated because they live so close with us intelligent humans. They watch us, listen to us give them commands and they understand them. How long before dogs can talk?

Dogs can talk now. I have a friend who's dog says "Roll Tide!" when Alabama scores. Clear as day, I've seen it dozens of times. Crows can describe to another crow (through crow language) what an individual posing a danger looks like and the other crow consistently avoids these individuals they have never even seen before.

Again, my point remains intact. All kinds of living organisms are supposedly evolving in this natural cycle of evolution, intelligence, sentience, ability... they all have their share. Cognizance, reasoning, rationalization... many of them have that as well. Big brains, big cerebral cortex? Some have that as well. All the ingredients are there in the same primordial soup, but of all the billions of life forms ever to exist, humans are unique and different. There is no evidence it "evolved" into us, it has always been present in humankind.

Yes, dogs are going to become "smarter" and so is every other life form, if you believe in anything Darwin theorized at all. And I think most everyone can agree this is so, but until I see dogs attending Sunday School or leading mass, I don't think they have achieved the same level of spiritual awareness (inspiration for humanity) as humans... (sorry Breeze, I know you disagree with this.) Humans continue to have something that other living things don't have, and that is our spiritual foundation.

what you fail to recognize boss is the Lions Spirit has evolved accordingly with its founding whereas your Spirit has evolved to a disposition of self interest - as per religious order the Lion has the ( natural ) affinity for Admission to the Everlasting that humanity has lost.

Spiritually speaking boss, you are bankrupt.

.

I always say if horrible humans get to go to a heaven, why not sweet innocent loving dogs and cats?

I think the reason is that back in the day when primitive man was making all this god and religion stuff up someone must have asked what happens to the animals "souls" and the guy making it all up had to explain it away so he said god put the animals on earth for us.

Soooooo obviously man made up the whole ******* thing. I'm not mad or angry or evil about it. I just like telling people the truth when they don't know it. It's like knowing a secret and wanting to tell everyone. But not a secret that is harmful to others. I'm sure theist don't think their cult is harmful in fact they get great joy out of going and think heaven awaits after. What a great scam! Like a Fraternity. They promise friendship and everlasting membership. For life at least.

 

[sealybobo]

[Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever know truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can know truth is God.

And, Zeus as god of the gods will lead us to ultimate twoof.

Boss says it is because we have always believed in "something" that this something must be true.

Do you see how little evidence they need? Then he'll go off on basically a tangent that since we don't know everything, his wild and crazy theories have some merit. Yet Christians all disagree. They may agree with the overall premise that a god(s) exist, but they don't agree with anything he's saying. Boss can't even show me one site where someone other than him uses his logic.

Yet notice how Boss is just as sure as the Muslim, Jew & Christian?

But that's ok because no one has ever killed over generic god. The only problem is these puny humans believe the Mo, Jo & Jesus stories from the past. They are still only using a very small portion of their brains obviously.

I believe as more atheists and generic god believers exist the more the dummy/religion gene is going to be bred out of us. I hope anyway. The bible belt remember just 20 years ago they all had that red neck hick accent? It's almost gone now. You hardly ever hear a red neck talkin hicky anymore. Maybe their stupid religion will become outdated too. I mean they are Americans. They do have the net. They can't be that far behind us.

Anyways, Boss' argument is just a little more intelligent and thought out than my 70 year old dad's argument that anyone who thinks all this happened by itself is stupid. Ok dad. I'll listen to you and your ancestors and not science.

 

[BreezeWood]

The only thing that can know truth is God.

I agree with Rawlings - the Apex of Knowledge is assailable and correctly accomplished foretells the acceptance into the Everlasting - as judged by the Almighty.

including the necessary physical attributes for ascension.

.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Doctrine is one aspect of religion.

IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.

It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.

You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question. I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all. But it is a "sound" that one must slow down long enough to "hear."

By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.

I'm very interested in the concept of Logos'. The Word. It's sort of like before life existed on Earth, there already existed an instruction for life to exist, and then it became matter in the physical form of DNA strands.

The Word Incarnate. You can think of God as an instruction. Let there be light, and it was so, and most importantly, it was good!

The Cosmic Christ, the Tao, Dharma, Logos, that's good stuff.

And then you've got Mythos, which would pertain to your Christianity, and my Druidic path.

St Augustine once wrote that the City of God is built with temporary scaffolding. The scaffolding (culture and religion) will ultimately be removed when the law is written on our hearts. He is saying that the end game of Christianity is a harmonious anarchy.

Man is not yet man. But the future of man is shaped by a temporary scaffolding, whether that be cast in atheism, or Christianity, or paganism, or otherwise.

The atheist seeks salvation in science and technology, and is more inclined toward transhumanism.

 

[sealybobo]

[Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever know truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can know truth is God.

Then nothing can know truth because there is no god. That's sad huh?

I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything". Is that what you meant?

P.S. I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god. His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is. There is a god because there must be.

And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.

Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian. Do you know what you are? A cherry picker. You are like a tea bagger or libertarian. Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off. A cherry picker. You believe in generic god and hell. And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.

More people are atheists than agree with your version of god. Think about that for a minute. Why do they all believe different things? Because it's all in their heads.

There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.

 

[emilynghiem]

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

The problem I have with this, Emily, is that objectivity means objectivity. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.

The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.

An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of number 4, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind because of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.

Word.

And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.

Pratchett is not a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order is the evidence for God's existence. That's lunacy! He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all. It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.

But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.

Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.

What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
due to people or conflicts from the past.

You and I may be able to put that aside.
But some people need more time,
and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.

One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.

We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.

I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.

MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
to focus on these points.

But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.

You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
But to get there, we NEED to go through this
emotional hashing out.

You are doing it, too.

I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.

So if that is the role you play, that's fine.

Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.

We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.

You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.

I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.

What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.

MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?

You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.

You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.

Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
by working with them?

Maybe that's not your gift, MD.

Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.

Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
steps to let go and resolve objections.

My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.

MD it may take longer than you think.

Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride. Things I say
that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
cause us both to yell at each other.

And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.

We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.

MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
we need to be and we're not there yet.

How is frustration going to help?

The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.

So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
to become "more objective"
and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.

How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
with a bunch of people who don't know each other?

Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.

If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.

Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
where we can improve and hear each other better!

Take care,
With love and respect,
Yours truly, Emily

 

[sealybobo]

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

The problem I have with this, Emily, is that objectivity means objectivity. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.

The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.

An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of number 4, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind because of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.

Word.

And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.

Pratchett is not a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order is the evidence for God's existence. That's lunacy! He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all. It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.

But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.

Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.

What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
due to people or conflicts from the past.

You and I may be able to put that aside.
But some people need more time,
and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.

One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.

We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.

I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.

MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
to focus on these points.

But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.

You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
But to get there, we NEED to go through this
emotional hashing out.

You are doing it, too.

I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.

So if that is the role you play, that's fine.

Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.

We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.

You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.

I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.

What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.

MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?

You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.

You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.

Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
by working with them?

Maybe that's not your gift, MD.

Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.

Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
steps to let go and resolve objections.

My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.

MD it may take longer than you think.

Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride. Things I say
that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
cause us both to yell at each other.

And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.

We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.

MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
we need to be and we're not there yet.

How is frustration going to help?

The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.

So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
to become "more objective"
and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.

How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
with a bunch of people who don't know each other?

Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.

If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.

Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
where we can improve and hear each other better!

Take care,
With love and respect,
Yours truly, Emily

So what the preacher apologized? What did he apologize for? Sorry the members in my church are all assholes please come back? Why would anyone want to go back? So either your friend can go find another church and hope they aren't kooks or he can do the right thing and just forget the whole religion thing. LOL.

 

[sealybobo]

Don't you hate those math or music teachers who don't understand that you are not getting it? I run a music school and this teacher one day was trying to explain how there are only 7 notes, a, b, c, d, e, f, g and how that means something! I was like, "really? what?"

I understand there are only 7 chords, but what is the "ah hah! moment? I don't get it. And I saw him trying to explain it to some kids and I don't think they got it either however we all just nodded and said we got it and he seemed to be pleased. But like the math teacher, how many of his pupils are just nodding because they don't want to admit they don't really get it?

 

[emilynghiem]

proving God =/= Christianity

.

Dear Breezewood:
Yes and no.
Although proving God by consensus on meaning is not limited to Christianity,
the FORGIVENESS taught in Christianity and the Spiritual HEALING
are the central key to resolving conflicts standing in the way.

As Hollie brought up, she pointed to the issue of TRUST.
So as we forgive and heal of trust issues in the past, and we rebuild trust
with each other, the truth will come to resolution among us, working it out.

We can't get there if we don't forgive and work with the process to establish
truth and restore good working relations as part of the same process.

Breezewood, since you do not seem to have experience with Christian Spiritual Healing,
may I send you the books (Healing by Francis MacNutt and The Healing Light by Agnes Sanford)
that explain how spiritual healing is natural and the way our minds and bodies are designed, to self-heal.

The books explain that to unlock the process, the key is to find obstructions that are blocking
the mind and body from receiving natural healing energy that normally flows and circulates.
So that is why we have the 12 step recovery and therapy after traumas to heal these blockages.
That is why the Christians teach deliverance and generational healing to stop passing down
things like racist hatred or cycles of addiction or abuse from one generation to the next "in the spirit."

Can I send you these references?

Since you are coming from a neutral position where you do not favor or push Christianity,
I think it would help to see how you respond to this, and how you would explain it to others
who are not Christian and have no interest, belief or favor/bias toward Christianity.

My friend Daron HATES Christianity, does not trust anyone with that "agenda"
and yet the spiritual healing freed him from chronic rage from abuse from his father and grandmother.
He still have to go through more stages to fully heal on all levels, but at least the demonic rage is gone
that prevented him from moving forward.

I'd like your opinion on this, since you seem open to the more universal levels of
spirituality.

I find that the concepts and principles in Christianity ARE key to healing humanity,
one relationship at a time, but the process is so universal that it is not limited to just the
Christian way of teaching it.

The same process of establishing truth, peace and justice (which God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit represent)
still work by Forgiveness and Healing even if you are an Atheist like my friend Daron.

My friend Ray Hill also teaches "abundance of free grace" and forgiveness to heal the mind and stay sane,
and he is an Atheist. He works WITH Christians who can deal with him, but if they can't, he doesn't push it
but stays away.

So the same CHRISTIAN concepts are central to the process,
but the language and expression can vary, such as in Buddhism, Atheist and other Nontheistic views and approaches.

So the process of reaching a consensus on God and Jesus
still relies on Christianity, but it is not the end in itself.

You cannot "magically" get there just by being Christian, saying you are,
saying magic words or performing rituals.

the key is FORGIVENESS and each person has a different path for doing that.
Christ Jesus represents the fulfillment of this path, but it will not be expressed
in Christian terms for people like Daron, Ray and others who are secular Gentiles and understand natural laws.

I hope you can understand this Breezewood.

The Bible says the gate of righteousness is very narrow, and few shall find it.

For some reason it is a hard concept for people to understand:
how can Christianity be the one way, central to all people,
and yet also fulfill all paths
where ALL ways lead to the Kingdom of God or spiritual peace and truth?
So all ways are MADE right, and they all will work,
yet Christ is the one way that allows this to come about.

how can it be both?
If you can understand, that is the key.

I hope you get it, Breezewood, because if you do,
I think you will be able to explain to more people better than I can.

 

[emilynghiem]

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

The problem I have with this, Emily, is that objectivity means objectivity. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.

The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.

An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of number 4, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind because of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.

Word.

And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.

Pratchett is not a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order is the evidence for God's existence. That's lunacy! He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all. It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.

But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.

Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.

What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
due to people or conflicts from the past.

You and I may be able to put that aside.
But some people need more time,
and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.

One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.

We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.

I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.

MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
to focus on these points.

But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.

You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
But to get there, we NEED to go through this
emotional hashing out.

You are doing it, too.

I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.

So if that is the role you play, that's fine.

Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.

We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.

You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.

I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.

What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.

MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?

You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.

You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.

Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
by working with them?

Maybe that's not your gift, MD.

Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.

Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
steps to let go and resolve objections.

My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.

MD it may take longer than you think.

Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride. Things I say
that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
cause us both to yell at each other.

And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.

We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.

MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
we need to be and we're not there yet.

How is frustration going to help?

The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.

So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
to become "more objective"
and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.

How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
with a bunch of people who don't know each other?

Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.

If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.

Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
where we can improve and hear each other better!

Take care,
With love and respect,
Yours truly, Emily

So what the preacher apologized? What did he apologize for? Sorry the members in my church are all assholes please come back? Why would anyone want to go back? So either your friend can go find another church and hope they aren't kooks or he can do the right thing and just forget the whole religion thing. LOL.

There was a huge travesty between Daron and someone close to one of the ministers.
He would not apologize, because it involved him and the other person, and he did not feel he owed anything to anyone else.

The pastor and church basically denounced Daron as Satan or Antichrist himself.
His actions were deplorable, but he is redeemable and that did not encourage any steps in the right direction.

The pastor or minister/preacher offered to apologize and mend the relations
but of course Daron does not trust any church that is convinced they have the ONLY way and all the
other churches, Christians, Catholic Church, nonchristians, etc. are lost and wrong.

If you ask me, they BOTH have issues.

The issues run so deep they need to handle them separately and it is a disaster to try to go through
a process together when their paths are so different. Daron uses a mix of Buddhism and secular type
healing and logic to go through his steps of agreeing to let go. He is not going to respond to anyone,
not even me a good friend he respects and trusts to have his best interests at heart, "telling him what to do or think."

He has to go through it himself.

So it is best he work alone.

I have other friends who can only work alone, or they clash with people pushing.

Even though online communication isn't perfect, one advantage it offers
is hashing things out with people who need to work things out logistically on their own, their own way.

We can still use it for that, and just have to forgive when we step on each other
or talk past each other. But it's great for spelling out multiple issues that stack up,
and picking them apart one by one.

My friend Daron uses music with very poetic lyrics, though some of the venting songs are hard metal harsh language,
has written a short script to spell out all his issues in one rant so he can act it out through film (and not really go off in real life
as he wanted to use it for a stage performance, for therapy to get it out of his system, his anger at religious fundamental
hypocrites telling people to go to hell when they are the very epitome of that), and has a book he wants to write on his open ended views, similar to Buddhism, but he hasn't totally let go yet. He still fights for conditions that he wants met, and isn't totally detached or objective but still reacting because he still has forgiveness and trauma issues from past abuses that may never fully heal. They may always have some sensitive scar tissue, so any pushing at all, even when he knows I am not like the people he hates, is going to trigger those defense mechanisms and rejection. He may always be that way, like a Pit Bull who can go off at any moment and cannot help if there is a trigger insider.

I think he can heal but it has to be on his terms. So whatever books or films he wants to produce,
it has to be his way and nobody can tell him "he needs to edit or change this" or he'll blow up!

I think that is his best course of self-therapy to talk it out and heal it as he expresses his grievances and lets go.

(What MD cannot understand is how people need to do this, to go through their own process on their terms
to get to a better place. You can't rush the process. They need to take the steps themselves when it's time for that.

Like telling a kid to quit crying, but maybe that kid NEEDS to cry, to release the stress first.)

 

[emilynghiem]

[Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever know truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can know truth is God.

Then nothing can know truth because there is no god. That's sad huh?

I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything". Is that what you meant?

P.S. I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god. His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is. There is a god because there must be.

And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.

Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian. Do you know what you are? A cherry picker. You are like a tea bagger or libertarian. Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off. A cherry picker. You believe in generic god and hell. And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.

More people are atheists than agree with your version of god. Think about that for a minute. Why do they all believe different things? Because it's all in their heads.

There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.

Dear Sealybobo:
Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?

Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?

 

[emilynghiem]

"God is the source of knowledge" is not objective.

Dear GT and Sealybobo:
Are you OK with God's truth = sum or collective set of all knowledge and laws in the universe?

Is that neutral enough, to talk about the collective set of all truths = universal truth?

 

[sealybobo]

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth. I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted. That person is useless. He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others. Read post 2020.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

The problem I have with this, Emily, is that objectivity means objectivity. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.

The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.

An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of number 4, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind because of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.

Word.

And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.

Pratchett is not a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order is the evidence for God's existence. That's lunacy! He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all. It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.

But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.

Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.

What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
due to people or conflicts from the past.

You and I may be able to put that aside.
But some people need more time,
and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.

One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.

We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.

I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.

MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
to focus on these points.

But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.

You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
But to get there, we NEED to go through this
emotional hashing out.

You are doing it, too.

I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.

So if that is the role you play, that's fine.

Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.

We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.

You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.

I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.

What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.

MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?

You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.

You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.

Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
by working with them?

Maybe that's not your gift, MD.

Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.

Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
steps to let go and resolve objections.

My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.

MD it may take longer than you think.

Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride. Things I say
that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
cause us both to yell at each other.

And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.

We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.

MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
we need to be and we're not there yet.

How is frustration going to help?

The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.

So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
to become "more objective"
and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.

How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
with a bunch of people who don't know each other?

Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.

If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.

Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
where we can improve and hear each other better!

Take care,
With love and respect,
Yours truly, Emily

So what the preacher apologized? What did he apologize for? Sorry the members in my church are all assholes please come back? Why would anyone want to go back? So either your friend can go find another church and hope they aren't kooks or he can do the right thing and just forget the whole religion thing. LOL.

There was a huge travesty between Daron and someone close to one of the ministers.
He would not apologize, because it involved him and the other person, and he did not feel he owed anything to anyone else.

The pastor and church basically denounced Daron as Satan or Antichrist himself.
His actions were deplorable, but he is redeemable and that did not encourage any steps in the right direction.

The pastor or minister/preacher offered to apologize and mend the relations
but of course Daron does not trust any church that is convinced they have the ONLY way and all the
other churches, Christians, Catholic Church, nonchristians, etc. are lost and wrong.

If you ask me, they BOTH have issues.

The issues run so deep they need to handle them separately and it is a disaster to try to go through
a process together when their paths are so different. Daron uses a mix of Buddhism and secular type
healing and logic to go through his steps of agreeing to let go. He is not going to respond to anyone,
not even me a good friend he respects and trusts to have his best interests at heart, "telling him what to do or think."

He has to go through it himself.

So it is best he work alone.

I have other friends who can only work alone, or they clash with people pushing.

Even though online communication isn't perfect, one advantage it offers
is hashing things out with people who need to work things out logistically on their own, their own way.

We can still use it for that, and just have to forgive when we step on each other
or talk past each other. But it's great for spelling out multiple issues that stack up,
and picking them apart one by one.

My friend Daron uses music with very poetic lyrics, though some of the venting songs are hard metal harsh language,
has written a short script to spell out all his issues in one rant so he can act it out through film (and not really go off in real life
as he wanted to use it for a stage performance, for therapy to get it out of his system, his anger at religious fundamental
hypocrites telling people to go to hell when they are the very epitome of that), and has a book he wants to write on his open ended views, similar to Buddhism, but he hasn't totally let go yet. He still fights for conditions that he wants met, and isn't totally detached or objective but still reacting because he still has forgiveness and trauma issues from past abuses that may never fully heal. They may always have some sensitive scar tissue, so any pushing at all, even when he knows I am not like the people he hates, is going to trigger those defense mechanisms and rejection. He may always be that way, like a Pit Bull who can go off at any moment and cannot help if there is a trigger insider.

I think he can heal but it has to be on his terms. So whatever books or films he wants to produce,
it has to be his way and nobody can tell him "he needs to edit or change this" or he'll blow up!

I think that is his best course of self-therapy to talk it out and heal it as he expresses his grievances and lets go.

(What MD cannot understand is how people need to do this, to go through their own process on their terms
to get to a better place. You can't rush the process. They need to take the steps themselves when it's time for that.

Like telling a kid to quit crying, but maybe that kid NEEDS to cry, to release the stress first.)

What I don't like about theists is they think I need to work something out when I don't. So I get the feeling maybe Daron is just fine. All he needs to do is stay away from churches. LOL.

What issues does Daron have? Please don't say he's angry or bitter because so are a lot of religious people.

And does Daron believe in god but just doesn't like organized religions? Many people say they are "atheists" but what they are is mad at god because someone in their family died or because their prayer wasn't answered.

I had some bad experiences with organized religions. I admit it helped me shape my belief or opinion that there is no god.

That's right righties I said it is my belief or opinion! Sue me. LOL.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.

Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.

He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.

Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.

"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.

Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.

Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".

You just need to "believe".

Hollie yes and no.
1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
this CAN be proven to work
c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile

Hollie, where "faith" steps in
A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice

Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!

But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!

B. For forgiveness
Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
each case is different.

In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.

They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
So it will fail.

All the cases I have seen that worked
the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.

They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
counterintuitive!

They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
and then used that higher state of letting go
in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"

So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
We have to believe it is the better step to take
in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.

Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
that is why it requires some faith
to even try this step to see if it helps!

Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off!

Firstly, We clearly don't use the "pwoof" system used by M. Pompous Rawling. Those are not pwoofs at all but as admitted to by his pom pom flailing groupie, explicit admissions of promoting fundamentalist Christian dogma. If you have read through the Pwoofs of gods offered by M. Pompous Rawling, you'd see pretty quickly it's question begging ad absurdum. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

In clear and sharp contrast to regurgitating fundie dogma, It is precisely our ability to reason that brings the mysterious to understanding. You may have eternal "faith" in the sun rising and travelling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.

This brings us to the next level of the fundamentalists' argument, which is that truth is arbitrary in any event-- ultimately, one must have faith in a particular, partisan version of god(s) to have knowledge, or ability to perceive knowledge in the first place.

Rebutting the latter assertion is easy, because no one can claim with any hope of being taken seriously that there is ultimately no such thing as knowledge. The assertion itself contradicts its own premise, since if it's true, then it becomes knowledge, and the assertion dies. If it is not true, then it needn't be considered.

What is comically tragic about the lies and deceit furthered by the two, primary apologists in this thread is the twisted and skewed basis for their claims to magic and supernaturalism. Many apologists have grappled long and hard on the issue of faith, and ultimately none of them have worked out the inherent dilemma that faith is, in fact, the acceptance of assertions regardless of factual evidence. What they have done instead is focused on the possible versus the probable, and this has confused the issue to a degree that many philosophers, both theists and rationalists, can no longer define the difference.

There has long been the argument that unless we have a totality of knowledge (i.e., omniscience), we cannot know for sure whether their is a god or not, or whether there are realms of existence other than our own. Are such things possible? Well, since we don't have omniscience, we are forced to say, "yes, they are possible." The question is not whether something as irrational as god is possible, but is it probable? Given the evidence of all of nature that surrounds us, the answer is no.



Lastly, I think you trample the divide that separates faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with trust. The theist usually argues that we have faith in things all the time; for example, we have faith that gravity will keep us from flying off the planet, or we have faith in friends, or doctors, etc. We do not have faith in these things, we have trust in them, and we have trust in them as long as they continue to warrant that trust.

Hi Hollie: Thank you for your reply. I think you hit the nail on the head with the TRUST issue.
If we can even overcome TRUST issues here, that process is enough to unravel these other knots we've tied
up and entangled ourselves in.

A. RE: Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off!
If I'd rather make you mad for that reason, rather than offend you for other reasons.
If I offend you for any reason, will you please point out specifically so I can correct the problem.

I would like to be as specific as possible, and not this business of just blaming angry Christians in general
which does address where and what is going wrong. I really do want to address and correct each point.

BTW as long as we can connect on this level, talking personally one to one,
I think that is good enough.
I think anything else can be addressed within that connection.

We won't agree on a lot of things, but if there is anything that CAN
be corrected, it will be by connecting on a personal level where we really hear each other.
thanks for this!

B. as for TRUST issues
how can we help MD to TRUST the process
and TRUST people to be following along and working out the steps.

Hollie can you find some points in MD lists that you CAN agree to address,
even one, and just focus there? If he practices talking with you on something
you both agree with, maybe start with that before taking on other points more complicated.

He and also Justin "don't trust" that you intend to follow any logic or something like that.
And I know you don't trust them except to push their agenda.

Can we start with something we DO trust is true and a universal point of focus?

Even if it is just a commitment to answer and address each other SPECIFICALLY
and not go off on calling people derogatory adjectives.

MD is still doing that, so obviously he still needs to vent before being objective!
He is not completely neutral himself if he has to attach negative remarks.
This is why I cannot understand why he can't get that other people need to vent too!

Why is it okay for HIM to vent off topic, but if other people do that,
something is wrong with those people!

obviously some processing going on....

Hollie can I ask you to look past that, and find just 1-2 points
that you agree with. Even GT and PercySunshine's point that
God can neither be proven nor disproven. Are you okay with that,both ways, not just can't be proven
but ALSO cannot be disproven.

If we can even agree with MD that God cannot be Disproven that's better than nothing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.

The problem I have with this, Emily, is that objectivity means objectivity. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.

The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.

An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of number 4, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind because of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.

Word.

And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.

Pratchett is not a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order is the evidence for God's existence. That's lunacy! He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all. It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.

But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.

Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.

What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
due to people or conflicts from the past.

You and I may be able to put that aside.
But some people need more time,
and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.

One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.

We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.

I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.

MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
to focus on these points.

But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.

You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
But to get there, we NEED to go through this
emotional hashing out.

You are doing it, too.

I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.

So if that is the role you play, that's fine.

Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.

We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.

You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.

I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.

What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.

MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?

You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.

You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.

Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
by working with them?

Maybe that's not your gift, MD.

Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.

Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
steps to let go and resolve objections.

My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.

MD it may take longer than you think.

Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride. Things I say
that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
cause us both to yell at each other.

And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.

We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.

MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
we need to be and we're not there yet.

How is frustration going to help?

The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.

So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
to become "more objective"
and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.

How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
with a bunch of people who don't know each other?

Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.

If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.

Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
where we can improve and hear each other better!

Take care,
With love and respect,
Yours truly, Emily

So what the preacher apologized? What did he apologize for? Sorry the members in my church are all assholes please come back? Why would anyone want to go back? So either your friend can go find another church and hope they aren't kooks or he can do the right thing and just forget the whole religion thing. LOL.

There was a huge travesty between Daron and someone close to one of the ministers.
He would not apologize, because it involved him and the other person, and he did not feel he owed anything to anyone else.

The pastor and church basically denounced Daron as Satan or Antichrist himself.
His actions were deplorable, but he is redeemable and that did not encourage any steps in the right direction.

The pastor or minister/preacher offered to apologize and mend the relations
but of course Daron does not trust any church that is convinced they have the ONLY way and all the
other churches, Christians, Catholic Church, nonchristians, etc. are lost and wrong.

If you ask me, they BOTH have issues.

The issues run so deep they need to handle them separately and it is a disaster to try to go through
a process together when their paths are so different. Daron uses a mix of Buddhism and secular type
healing and logic to go through his steps of agreeing to let go. He is not going to respond to anyone,
not even me a good friend he respects and trusts to have his best interests at heart, "telling him what to do or think."

He has to go through it himself.

So it is best he work alone.

I have other friends who can only work alone, or they clash with people pushing.

Even though online communication isn't perfect, one advantage it offers
is hashing things out with people who need to work things out logistically on their own, their own way.

We can still use it for that, and just have to forgive when we step on each other
or talk past each other. But it's great for spelling out multiple issues that stack up,
and picking them apart one by one.

My friend Daron uses music with very poetic lyrics, though some of the venting songs are hard metal harsh language,
has written a short script to spell out all his issues in one rant so he can act it out through film (and not really go off in real life
as he wanted to use it for a stage performance, for therapy to get it out of his system, his anger at religious fundamental
hypocrites telling people to go to hell when they are the very epitome of that), and has a book he wants to write on his open ended views, similar to Buddhism, but he hasn't totally let go yet. He still fights for conditions that he wants met, and isn't totally detached or objective but still reacting because he still has forgiveness and trauma issues from past abuses that may never fully heal. They may always have some sensitive scar tissue, so any pushing at all, even when he knows I am not like the people he hates, is going to trigger those defense mechanisms and rejection. He may always be that way, like a Pit Bull who can go off at any moment and cannot help if there is a trigger insider.

I think he can heal but it has to be on his terms. So whatever books or films he wants to produce,
it has to be his way and nobody can tell him "he needs to edit or change this" or he'll blow up!

I think that is his best course of self-therapy to talk it out and heal it as he expresses his grievances and lets go.

(What MD cannot understand is how people need to do this, to go through their own process on their terms
to get to a better place. You can't rush the process. They need to take the steps themselves when it's time for that.

Like telling a kid to quit crying, but maybe that kid NEEDS to cry, to release the stress first.)

What I don't like about theists is they think I need to work something out when I don't. So I get the feeling maybe Daron is just fine. All he needs to do is stay away from churches. LOL.

What issues does Daron have? Please don't say he's angry or bitter because so are a lot of religious people.

And does Daron believe in god but just doesn't like organized religions? Many people say they are "atheists" but what they are is mad at god because someone in their family died or because their prayer wasn't answered.

I had some bad experiences with organized religions. I admit it helped me shape my belief or opinion that there is no god.

That's right righties I said it is my belief or opinion! Sue me. LOL.

There are so many levels, not sure I can list them all.
Here are some, which stacked on top of each other over years and years of not resolving any of these:

1. Daron went through childhood and spiritual abuse from a VERY sick grandmother who was like Exorcist movie evil.
2. He suffered some criminal attacks on him that could have resulted in homicide because he could not control his rage this caused him.
3. He took out his rage during the 80s in a death metal band, and went through all the drugs, wild women, dark influences,
etc. that goes with that cultural time period. He should have been dead as most of his buddies have lost their health,
and he is in recovery where his doctors wonder how he is still alive with all the damage and toll on his body, mind and health.
4. He joined a church that had him memorize the Bible and teach THEIR way which is very exclusive.
It is a smaller group of a few thousand members worldwide, not JW, not any of the major ones like LDS or Church of Christ etc. but it was enough to make him give up and reject it when he decided it was all for naught.
(however, my friend Ray Hill who gave up preaching Baptist Christianity as a preacher at 19 who went atheist
has NO problem teaching forgiveness and grace, and working with Christians. he memorized the Bible also, and has no problem with people being whatever path they are. He follows Buddhism and is more detached and at peace than Daron.)
5. bad relations - he went through some very bad traumas with his dad's death and his ex-wife and his daughter.
So all this stacked on top of the others.

So telling him "he needs to forgive" is easier said than done.
The damage was on so many levels, it will take healing all those levels, which can take years.

Once you unplug the sink, there's still all the plumbing that needs to be cleared out also.

I think if people KNEW how hard it was to make these changes,
they'd have more respect.

They wouldn't call anyone names, for sure!

If MD think these people need to let go, maybe he should try NOT thinking negative
thoughts of these people. if he can't let go for two seconds to think NEUTRALLY toward others,
how can he preach to people who will need YEARS of steps and stages before they can let go?

Not fair to judge people.
Lot harder than you think.

 

[dblack]

Behold: another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system. You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. SHUT. UP.

He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.

Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.

"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.

Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.

Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".

You just need to "believe".

Hollie yes and no.
1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
this CAN be proven to work
c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile

Hollie, where "faith" steps in
A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice

Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!

But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!

B. For forgiveness
Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
each case is different.

In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.

They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
So it will fail.

All the cases I have seen that worked
the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.

They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
counterintuitive!

They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
and then used that higher state of letting go
in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"

So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
We have to believe it is the better step to take
in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.

Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
that is why it requires some faith
to even try this step to see if it helps!

Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off!

Firstly, We clearly don't use the "pwoof" system used by M. Pompous Rawling. Those are not pwoofs at all but as admitted to by his pom pom flailing groupie, explicit admissions of promoting fundamentalist Christian dogma. If you have read through the Pwoofs of gods offered by M. Pompous Rawling, you'd see pretty quickly it's question begging ad absurdum. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

In clear and sharp contrast to regurgitating fundie dogma, It is precisely our ability to reason that brings the mysterious to understanding. You may have eternal "faith" in the sun rising and travelling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.

This brings us to the next level of the fundamentalists' argument, which is that truth is arbitrary in any event-- ultimately, one must have faith in a particular, partisan version of god(s) to have knowledge, or ability to perceive knowledge in the first place.

Rebutting the latter assertion is easy, because no one can claim with any hope of being taken seriously that there is ultimately no such thing as knowledge. The assertion itself contradicts its own premise, since if it's true, then it becomes knowledge, and the assertion dies. If it is not true, then it needn't be considered.

What is comically tragic about the lies and deceit furthered by the two, primary apologists in this thread is the twisted and skewed basis for their claims to magic and supernaturalism. Many apologists have grappled long and hard on the issue of faith, and ultimately none of them have worked out the inherent dilemma that faith is, in fact, the acceptance of assertions regardless of factual evidence. What they have done instead is focused on the possible versus the probable, and this has confused the issue to a degree that many philosophers, both theists and rationalists, can no longer define the difference.

There has long been the argument that unless we have a totality of knowledge (i.e., omniscience), we cannot know for sure whether their is a god or not, or whether there are realms of existence other than our own. Are such things possible? Well, since we don't have omniscience, we are forced to say, "yes, they are possible." The question is not whether something as irrational as god is possible, but is it probable? Given the evidence of all of nature that surrounds us, the answer is no.



Lastly, I think you trample the divide that separates faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with trust. The theist usually argues that we have faith in things all the time; for example, we have faith that gravity will keep us from flying off the planet, or we have faith in friends, or doctors, etc. We do not have faith in these things, we have trust in them, and we have trust in them as long as they continue to warrant that trust.

Hi Hollie: Thank you for your reply. I think you hit the nail on the head with the TRUST issue.
If we can even overcome TRUST issues here, that process is enough to unravel these other knots we've tied
up and entangled ourselves in.

A. RE: Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off!
If I'd rather make you mad for that reason, rather than offend you for other reasons.
If I offend you for any reason, will you please point out specifically so I can correct the problem.

I would like to be as specific as possible, and not this business of just blaming angry Christians in general
which does address where and what is going wrong. I really do want to address and correct each point.

BTW as long as we can connect on this level, talking personally one to one,
I think that is good enough.
I think anything else can be addressed within that connection.

We won't agree on a lot of things, but if there is anything that CAN
be corrected, it will be by connecting on a personal level where we really hear each other.
thanks for this!

B. as for TRUST issues
how can we help MD to TRUST the process
and TRUST people to be following along and working out the steps.

Hollie can you find some points in MD lists that you CAN agree to address,
even one, and just focus there? If he practices talking with you on something
you both agree with, maybe start with that before taking on other points more complicated.

He and also Justin "don't trust" that you intend to follow any logic or something like that.
And I know you don't trust them except to push their agenda.

Can we start with something we DO trust is true and a universal point of focus?

Even if it is just a commitment to answer and address each other SPECIFICALLY
and not go off on calling people derogatory adjectives.

MD is still doing that, so obviously he still needs to vent before being objective!
He is not completely neutral himself if he has to attach negative remarks.
This is why I cannot understand why he can't get that other people need to vent too!

Why is it okay for HIM to vent off topic, but if other people do that,
something is wrong with those people!

obviously some processing going on....

Hollie can I ask you to look past that, and find just 1-2 points
that you agree with. Even GT and PercySunshine's point that
God can neither be proven nor disproven. Are you okay with that,both ways, not just can't be proven
but ALSO cannot be disproven.

If we can even agree with MD that God cannot be Disproven that's better than nothing.

I'd even go further than that. I think gods are very definitely real things. It's just a question of accurately perceiving their nature.

Folks like MD and Justin seem to be looking for enemies and I don't get that.

 

[sealybobo]

[Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.

Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.

Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.

You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is not truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you know that is true? Because you believe that is true? It’s not possible to believer a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle? Sure.
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality might be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume without always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is infinitely more complex than that!

You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever know truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can know truth is God.

Then nothing can know truth because there is no god. That's sad huh?

I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything". Is that what you meant?

P.S. I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god. His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is. There is a god because there must be.

And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.

Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian. Do you know what you are? A cherry picker. You are like a tea bagger or libertarian. Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off. A cherry picker. You believe in generic god and hell. And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.

More people are atheists than agree with your version of god. Think about that for a minute. Why do they all believe different things? Because it's all in their heads.

There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.

Dear Sealybobo:
Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?

Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?

What do you mean?