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

[Boss]

Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.

Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.

And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number. Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4. But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds. This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.

Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility. However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance. And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".

There are probably millions of other habitable planets in the universe that harbor life. So it's not by chance that earth exists.

Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there. But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists. (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)

I think "chance" is the wrong term to describe the existence, position, location, etc., of this planet. All of those elements are a function of complex interactions of gravity, amounts of gas, dust and debris following the "big bang" and even forces still being discovered at CERN.

I agree that 'chance' is a stretch to explain everything. Imagine that. You and I finding a point of agreement? That is some pretty strong evidence that there is such a thing as miracles.

 

[emilynghiem]

Integrity is admitting you're a coward.

You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.

Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.

You cannot.

You are incapable.

Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.
This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.

I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.

Dear GT and Boss
2+2=4 because we AGREED to DEFINE the symbols 2 and 4
to mean:
2 = * *
4 = * * * *

The good thing in MD's TAG is he is trying to distinguish the DEFINITIONS that "make things true by definition"

Can we agree to acknowledge the GAP between
1. the symbols used and treat these as neutral variables
"God" "Jesus"
2. the meanings we associate or don't get and SEPARATE the positive values from NEGATIVES
so +2 and -2 are NOT the same value and your proof falls apart if X = -2 and +2 in the same conversation
if people see God=something false or negative that is NOT the same as what MD is seeing or saying
3. projected perceptions and judgments of motives/intellectual honesty/lying/intelligence
by theists of nontheists and anti-TAG of pro-TAG, Christians vs nonchristians, my group vs that other messed up one, etc

If we cant forgive and let go of the traffic jams under #3
we are not ready to hash out the plusses and minus values under #2

When we get on the same page as equals respecting each other (#3) and our diverse views
and language (#2) then we can discuss the pros and cons of #1.

MD can listen to what Boss and I are saying because we respect each other as being on the same team
Boss made a good point but said it respectfully as a peer trying to support MD in getting this done right,
not an adversary trying to make MD fail. so MD can work with those criticisms and corrections offered
to improve the process,

I am good at hashing out the approaches under #2

GT if you came at this to try to correct and address what is wrong or missing
that works better than coming at the tree with an axe to chop it down at the trunk

Even if it is not perfectly set up, how can we save the tree and make good use of it as is
Do we add more branches that are leaving things out
Do we replicate the tree but starting with a different version of the premise that
works for you and others

we can try out the version that starts with the premise
"spiritual healing as taught by ____ is natural effective and demonstratable by science
as following predictable stages or steps in a process"
and anything that blocks contradicts or seeks to debunk or reject this
can be resolved to remove the contradictory perception or conflicting issues.
What studies will show is that degrees of forgivess will correlate with successful
healing recovery rehab and reconciliation of conflicts, while degrees of
unforgiveness will correlate with failures to heal or reconcile issues.

So MD wants to focus on the logical symbols for a global proof.
(which still needs more branching out for people who can accept
God=Wisdom or God=Life but don;t get God=Creator if that's not their understanding of God)

And I offer a Science approach that does verify natural spiritual healing
as following predictable patterns and factors. and falsifies the fraud or faulty practice that fails,
showing why by correlating factors.

i also offer to set up teams to show how relations can be healed
between warring tribes religiously or politically divided, so this demonstrates
the same prcoess and patterns across different groups and contexts.

Thanks

 

[Boss]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

So in your world, nothing is true?

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

 

[percysunshine]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

If god existed, this thread wouldn't.

If we AGREED that God exists this thread would not be needed or would already have served its purpose.

NOTICE
1. No one argues whether or not dreams are real because we TRUST no one lies about that
and if someone says they dreamed something last night, we don't call them a lying bigot.

2. No one argues if Mother Nature or Mother Earth exists
because we know that is a personification of Nature or Earth. so what if someone uses colorful symbols for that.

But if you personify Creation=God or God=Nature
you start a hailstorm or firestorm of criticism and attacks back and forth
because of associations with abusive Patriarchal tribes that enslaved and oppressed people.

3. the issue is more than just God
but involves our perceptions and relations with each other
that we PROJECT onto the process

That is why we don't agree

We all "gots issues" ;-)

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

So in your world, nothing is true?

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

Yes and no.

This is why MD has been yelling in ALL CAPS to separate
the SCIENCE part that doesn't prove but uses examples to verify or falsify
from the LOGIC symbols that prove things are either defined
consistently or they run into a contradiction, just based on how they were defined to begin with

Boss in your example of 2 + 2 = 5

you are saying what if the error came from
an extra apple slipped in that wasn;t counted
so it was really 2+2+1 = 5

or if the shopper miscounted three apples as two
so it was really 3+2 = 5

what if the cashier made a mistake at the register
2 + 2 = 4 but hit the 5 button

as long as we AGREE that
2 = * *
3 = * * *
4 = * * * *
5 = * * * * *
we can PROVE sentence equations are either consistent by the definitions/symbols
assigned, or inconsistent and conflicting like 2 + 2 does NOT EQUAL 5
because we AGREED 2=** so 2+2=**** and we AGREED to cal ****=4 not 5
we can prove based on agreed definitions

You are talking about the SCIENCE level that cannot be fully proven but CAN be explained
and demonstrated until we AGREE (like how we AGREE dreams are real
though we cannot prove what we dreamed) which MD says to avoid
and stick to LOGICAL DEFINITIONS that CAN be proven consistent or inconsistent
within that given framework. This is why he wants to use the Logic symbols not the science approach to their content (though personally he does get wrapped up in the content
and isnt as emotionally detached and objective as the neutral logic symbols should offer).

I agree with you. Boss. and Godel
that since universal absolute truth is beyond the finite scope of man
we can never fully prove this but only demonstrate by example and make conclusions on faith

I also agree with MD to stick to math or logic variables
and only ask that we vary the starting values to communicate with entire groups
of people who understand God under diverse versions of the same names

in buddhism their trinity or refuges = buddha dharma sangha
which is parallel but not the same as god christ holy spirit
in confucianism it is jen yi and li
in constitutionalism judicial legislative executive
in hinduism creator destroyer of evil preserver of peace
in taoism and YMCA it is body mind and spirit
similar to psychology of supergo ego and id

these show the parallels of how human nature
and the systems of laws we construct to define relations between individual experience
and collective levels are "made in the image of God" based on the same patterns
between the terms and definitions as given. this shows a universal connection but doesnt
prove it which still relies on faith it is based on the same source of nature.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is all very simple. Here is the answer. Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.

Thank me.

 

[Taz]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

So in your world, nothing is true?

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is all very simple. Here is the answer. Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.

Thank me.

Yes IM Peach also brought this up and I agreed with those two points, though not the last one.

the last assertion made was that if it wasn't consistent with the laws of physics it "was not possible"

what I offered to substitute instead was
to ACCEPT the fact that people may believe different things
1. there is a starting point or source of creation (MD and Justin seem to start here)
2. all things just are and don't have a starting point or creator which is making a leap (I have atheist and buddhist
friends who start here)
3. we don't know which way it is or if there is something else (Boss seems to be this openminded and openended,
but I tend to go with what the person I am addressing starts with and work from their perspective which is real to them)

I ask to set up a proof process that leaves it open to people from any of these views.
MD wants to push a proof process that assumes and defines 1 to be true automatically by definition, so we just prove the logic works, and inserting anything else inserts a contradiction against the definitions already agreed upon.

Not everyone agrees to those definitions or to that process as set up by MD.

I agree with Boss GT and PercySunshine that God can neither be proven or disproven.
MD agrees with this in terms of Science not proving anything, but he still argues that LOGIC can prove by defintion.

So if we don't agree, why not focus on the laws/process that apply to us and all humanity
REGARDLESS if
A. there is a source/starting point or if all things always were
B. we can or cannot prove or disprove God
C. we don't agree on the definition meaning or process of reaching agreement on God

I offered to build teams around MD to prove a consensus on God can be reached by definitions.
and to set up medical science research studies on Spiritual Healing to show which methods, such as taught in Christianity,
are natural and effective and the difference or failures in processes that are fake fraudulent or otherwise faulty.

this would be one way to apply science to come to an agreement on the laws of human
nature, energy and how our different levels of mind body and spirit are connected and affected.

so this would be independent if we do or don't agree on the issues of God above.

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

So in your world, nothing is true?

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.

No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet, or it may never be. We don't always know and best leave it open.

I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying.
You are missing out!

We need more openminded people willing to admit things could always be different
from what we assume to be given or true.

It is a tougher road to take, so maybe you feel sorry for how much trouble it is
to stay open to others and not just declare people wrong. It does take a lot more work.

 

[Taz]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

So in your world, nothing is true?

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.

No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.

I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
You are missing out!

I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.

PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.

 

[Hollie]

Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.

Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.

And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.

"Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?

And yes, the gawds you have renamed as "spiritual - something or another" certainly were invented to explain natural events not fully understood. That's precisely why so many of the gods were assigned to manage and control acts of nature; gods of thunder, lightning, wind, water, etc.

As to your ignorance regarding biological evolution, your argument is with the entirety of the relevant science community. Like so many religious extremists, you revile science because it supplants fear of the unknown and your desire to accept magical spirit realms with reason and rational explanations. If to want to understand the mechanisms of biological evolution, you can consult your cult leader, or, you could take some courses in chemistry and biology and become acquainted with the overwhelming wealth of material that demonstrates biological evolution.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called magical spirit realms.

And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”

My preference is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. You preference is based (as you admit here) purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.

 

[emilynghiem]

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

So in your world, nothing is true?

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.

No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.

I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
You are missing out!

I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.

PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.

What? Boss has very strong beliefs and opinions, but just stays openminded that other people have their own versions and takes on reality.

I know some other people your assessment may apply to, but they are NOT as at peace as Boss is!

I'm also not a blowhard but a total softie.

I can imitate a blowhard if I'm talking to one, and it is necessary to use their own language.

My role is more like an empath interpreter, who acts as an inbetween.
If you give me one concept I can spell it out in 3 to 20 different ways depending on the audience you are addressing.

Since there are multiple audiences here, that's why I struggle to address them all without leaving any out."

When I am only speaking to one person about one thing, and the question is clear, so is the answer.
But unfortunately, most people on here are asking questions or making points on SEVERAL levels at once.

As a "holistic processor," when I answer that, I may address each level or each audience so it multiplies.
Sorry for this, it is tedious but helps to hash out all those angles so we can include them all in the final resolution.

Taz in general, if people have good intent, they see the good intent and side of what I do.
If people are here to make people wrong or bring people down,
there are infinite opportunities to pick apart what I say and make something negative of it.

So I trust to bring out the better side of people
who then focus on the points that make sense (out of all the other choices I offer).
Just ignore the rest, and pick the best!

When we edit down to what works for you,
we can focus there instead! Okay? cheers!

 

[emilynghiem]

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

So in your world, nothing is true?

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.

No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.

I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
You are missing out!

I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.

PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.

Hmmm Taz. Maybe in addition to Thanks and Agree
we need a button for people "projecting their own issues and accusing someone else"
ha ha
that button would get broken from overuse!!!

 

[Taz]

So in your world, nothing is true?

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.

No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.

I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
You are missing out!

I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.

PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.

What? Boss has very strong beliefs and opinions, but just stays openminded that other people have their own versions and takes on reality.

I know some other people your assessment may apply to, but they are NOT as at peace as Boss is!

I'm also not a blowhard but a total softie.

I can imitate a blowhard if I'm talking to one, and it is necessary to use their own language.

My role is more like an empath interpreter, who acts as an inbetween.
If you give me one concept I can spell it out in 3 to 20 different ways depending on the audience you are addressing.

Since there are multiple audiences here, that's why I struggle to address them all without leaving any out."

When I am only speaking to one person about one thing, and the question is clear, so is the answer.
But unfortunately, most people on here are asking questions or making points on SEVERAL levels at once.

As a "holistic processor," when I answer that, I may address each level or each audience so it multiplies.
Sorry for this, it is tedious but helps to hash out all those angles so we can include them all in the final resolution.

Taz in general, if people have good intent, they see the good intent and side of what I do.
If people are here to make people wrong or bring people down,
there are infinite opportunities to pick apart what I say and make something negative of it.

So I trust to bring out the better side of people
who then focus on the points that make sense (out of all the other choices I offer).
Just ignore the rest, and pick the best!

When we edit down to what works for you,
we can focus there instead! Okay? cheers!

Sheesh, that was enough hot air to pop some popcorn for everyone at the board today!

 

[BreezeWood]

Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there. But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists. (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)

Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.

... until we can go there


The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!

however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.

well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.

there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.


- what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.

Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there. But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists. (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)

Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.

... until we can go there


The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!

however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.

well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.

there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.


- what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.

Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...

.

I haven't been arguing from the concept that everything or anything that exists was created by a Creator. That is a different argument from what the OP asks. But until you can PROVE that everything that exists did not have a Creator or any of the other 'certainties' you express, you are whistling in the dark and coming from a position of faith as much as anybody else posting on this thread.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.

Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.

No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.

I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
You are missing out!

I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.

PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.

What? Boss has very strong beliefs and opinions, but just stays openminded that other people have their own versions and takes on reality.

I know some other people your assessment may apply to, but they are NOT as at peace as Boss is!

I'm also not a blowhard but a total softie.

I can imitate a blowhard if I'm talking to one, and it is necessary to use their own language.

My role is more like an empath interpreter, who acts as an inbetween.
If you give me one concept I can spell it out in 3 to 20 different ways depending on the audience you are addressing.

Since there are multiple audiences here, that's why I struggle to address them all without leaving any out."

When I am only speaking to one person about one thing, and the question is clear, so is the answer.
But unfortunately, most people on here are asking questions or making points on SEVERAL levels at once.

As a "holistic processor," when I answer that, I may address each level or each audience so it multiplies.
Sorry for this, it is tedious but helps to hash out all those angles so we can include them all in the final resolution.

Taz in general, if people have good intent, they see the good intent and side of what I do.
If people are here to make people wrong or bring people down,
there are infinite opportunities to pick apart what I say and make something negative of it.

So I trust to bring out the better side of people
who then focus on the points that make sense (out of all the other choices I offer).
Just ignore the rest, and pick the best!

When we edit down to what works for you,
we can focus there instead! Okay? cheers!

Sheesh, that was enough hot air to pop some popcorn for everyone at the board today!

And I'll bring the butter also....

 

[emilynghiem]

Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there. But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists. (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)

Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.

... until we can go there


The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!

however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.

well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.

there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.


- what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.

Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...

.

OK so given
The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!

so does the idea that God does NOT exist,
this idea exists in our minds

and "there is not a relevant connection" without scientific verification

Foxfyre is right. Your statements should apply back to you equally if they are TRUE.

And this is consistent with GT and Godel, PercySunshine and Boss
that we can neither prove nor disprove God who represents something infinite
beyond the scope of man's finite minds and science

Very good!

Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds"
to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?

Breezewood if they don't apply to you, and you are the exception,
then your statement is not universal but is faulty, if it only applies to other people's ideas not yours.

Is it true or not?