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

[Hollie]

There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism.

I know... so why do you believe in such things?

Well, obviously, you're befuddled and have to resort to goofy one- liners.

Unfortunately, you deride science for providing a mechanism for understanding the natural world. You would prefer instead to embrace ignorance and superstition. You would prefer instead to accept “the gawds did it” and go on your way. Unfortunately, that’s been the history of Religious fundamentalism.

Creationists/supernaturalists/gods did it ‘ists, are obligated to explain what they mean by "supernatural design". The problem with design arguments is there is no baseline from which one may accurately compare something that exhibits design from that which is natural, and because you're unable make distinctions between the two, you're something of the typical religious extremist.

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem: OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired

no emilynghiem - I do not agree with you ... your posts remind me of another time and the hearts of others.

.

^ Here BreezeWood ^
1. then what is the picture of Hitler doing here?

2. I see that you can distinguish your understanding of the Almighty
from what you oppose about the ABUSE of the Christian God to commit genocide.

Why can't you see that my views of God align closer with yours?
Why did you *assume* that my views of God align with the abuse that causes genocide?

I apologize for miscommunicating where you got the opposite impression,
but can you see why your accusation of me is insulting?
When I do not believe in any kind of genocide, but only spiritual healing and inclusion!

I relate more to YOUR open views of the Almighty
which I assume are on the side of universal inclusion.

The main difference between your views and mine
is that you
1. exclude the Christian God
2. you assume the Christian God = genocidal abuse
3. I DISTINGUISH between the right teachings of the Christian God = Spiritual Healing
VERSUS
the false teachings that cause the genocical abuse which is Antichrist not Christ
4. You also lump me in with the false antichrist genocidal abuse of God
while not lumping your view of the Almighty with this

So BreezeWood if you can see that your view of the Almighty
is NOT the same but the OPPOSITE of the genocidal Antichrist God

WHY can't you see that my view is closer to YOUR view of the Almighty
and is ALSO the OPPOSITE of the genocidal Antichrist God

Why didn't you group you and me on the same side?

I don't believe in genocide and understand that came from
the Antichrist side of Retributive Justice.

The Christ side of God is Restorative Justice
which seeks peaceful means through
Forgiveness and Spiritual healing.

So my views of God are about
Healingn and inclusion which is the opposite of Genocide and antichrist.

????

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm not attacking you. I agree with you kind of. I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God. That's what you're really saying. Stop saying that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.

I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.

Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.

Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to know truth because we are not omniscient beings. We believe we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.

Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it, just say, "Boss, I don't get it!" No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.

Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.

As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through. The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie. She appears to be a person of an unsound mind. She has real psychological problems. Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted. He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/

Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.

Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong. You're only one step away from the realty of things.

 

[Hollie]

"Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument.

If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.

We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.

Ahh.. but the spiritual doesn't require creation because 'creation' is a physical concept. It means literally, brought into a physical state of existence. The spiritual doesn't have to be brought into such a state.

The physical exists, it was created... you believe it was created by nothingness out of nothingness for no apparent reason... magic. I believe it was created by spiritual nature which has always existed as spiritual nature.

Ahh, so magical spirit realms have a special exemption because they're magical.

Nope, not an exemption because they are magical, just that spiritual isn't physical. Peyton Manning doesn't get an exemption for not being a Cy Young Award winner, he will never win that award because he's not a baseball player. He probably does know how to play baseball, however.

"Spiritual isn't physical" because it's magical and supernatural. Your weird attempt at sports analogy is a failure. There's nothing magical or supernatural about sports.

Your revulsion for science, knowledge and rationality is noted. But your attempts to suggest that your spirit realms and magical gawds are extant is based more on wistful nostalgia, willful ignorance and uncompromising allegiance to dogma spewed by your fundamentalist ministries. Every point you attempt to make in furtherance of your revulsion for true knowledge is at best polemically skewed and at worst demonstrably false.

 

[Tuatara]

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not attacking you. I agree with you kind of. I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God. That's what you're really saying. Stop saying that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.

I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.

Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.

Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to know truth because we are not omniscient beings. We believe we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.

Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it, just say, "Boss, I don't get it!" No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.

Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.

As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through. The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie. She appears to be a person of an unsound mind. She has real psychological problems. Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted. He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/

Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.

Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong. You're only one step away from the realty of things.

That's true, Boss. Join the cult of M. Pompous Rawling (you can be cult member 2 behind Justin), you too can become all a thumper can be.

Just memorize "the seven things". That's the shahada for membership and you will prostrate yourself at the alter of "the seven things" at prayer vigils five times per day.

 

[Hollie]

Boss said:

'No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.'

Actually this is completely devoid of logic, as this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Somebody gave you a thank you for that tripe, Jones. That must have been Hollie, as for Hollie the objective facts of rational necessity and academia are irrelevant. Never mind that if what you said were true, the foundation for science would be thusly destroyed.

Oh, you poor dear. What a shame that your nonsensical "the seven things" has been exposed as a fraud.

How strange that you're carrying on with failed lectures regarding "objective facts of rational necessity" when those elements are not a requirement in your spirit realms and inventions of supernatural gawds.

Your deductive and perceptive skills are non-existent. On the contrary, my arguments are supported by evidence and reason.

But what does your argument assert? Nothing except “the gawds did it”.

Your assertion of your various "gawds" does not tell us what gawds are, it tells us what gawds are not. Gawds are not part of the natural world, they are part of some magical, supernatural. Since the natural world incorporates the rational (as per reliable perception is concerned) then by definition the supernatural must define the irrational.

And in fact, your really skewed and twisted inventions including your fraudulent "five things" later trashed in favor of the more deeply fraudulent "seven things" is really a testament to your really bankrupt ability to make a coherent argument.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.

OK Boss and M.D. Rawlings
if it is possible the quantum vacuum may have always existed,
then if we set God = the highest level of creation or existence,
then God who created the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
So God/Creation = may have always existed without beginning or end.

A. Breezewood seems to take exception to separating God as Creator
from the whole of the Creation or all things = the Almighty
B. others seem to take exception to Combining God with Creation
and insist on distinguishing God as a Creator

I am asking BreezeWood what is wrong with allowing people to
personify this part of Creation as Creator and God that way.

So I ask you the equivalent, what is wrong with blending
God in with the whole of Creation?

Can't we still talk about universal laws whether we
personify God = Creator
or see God = Creation or Universe?

Doesn't the proof come out the same?
as long as we agree to define God = something we agree is the ultimate level

Yep. And I already addressed that here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10047689/

The logically objective fact of the highest conceivable standard of divinity remains: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness/perfection as the Creator of all other things that exist.

The construct of the transcendent God is greater than that of the pantheistic god. That is an objective fact of human cognition, as the former is absolutely self-subsistent and resides above the cosmological order, while the latter is contingently existent and/or entwined below. Logically, to presuppose the latter, regardless what is ultimately true, is to beg the question in terms of necessity and possibility.

BreezeWood's problem is the purely psychological obstinacy of one who refuses to back out of his paradigm and objectively acknowledge the entire range of the logical possibilities. Fox suffers from this same shortcoming. I, on the other hand, do not. So I objectify apprehend that BreezeWood might be right, but the objectively highest standard of divinity remains. The former cannot be logically eliminated; in fact, the former is what holds up in the rational and mathematical proofs of infinity.

In any event, BreezeWood necessarily concedes that The Seven Things are objectively true regardless of what he thinks God is ultimately like.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm not attacking you. I agree with you kind of. I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God. That's what you're really saying. Stop saying that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.

I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.

Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.

Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to know truth because we are not omniscient beings. We believe we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.

Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it, just say, "Boss, I don't get it!" No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.

Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.

As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through. The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie. She appears to be a person of an unsound mind. She has real psychological problems. Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted. He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/

Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.

Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong. You're only one step away from the realty of things.

That's true, Boss. Join the cult of M. Pompous Rawling (you can be cult member 2 behind Justin), you too can become all a thumper can be.

Just memorize "the seven things". That's the shahada for membership and you will prostrate yourself at the alter of "the seven things" at prayer vigils five times per day.

Your prostrating before the very same alter, as are we all, so welcome to my world. Amen.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.
LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?

smh

.

If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.

.

To Infinity and Beyond Transcending our Limitations by Nassim Haramein

 

[Hollie]

For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.

OK Boss and M.D. Rawlings
if it is possible the quantum vacuum may have always existed,
then if we set God = the highest level of creation or existence,
then God who created the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
So God/Creation = may have always existed without beginning or end.

A. Breezewood seems to take exception to separating God as Creator
from the whole of the Creation or all things = the Almighty
B. others seem to take exception to Combining God with Creation
and insist on distinguishing God as a Creator

I am asking BreezeWood what is wrong with allowing people to
personify this part of Creation as Creator and God that way.

So I ask you the equivalent, what is wrong with blending
God in with the whole of Creation?

Can't we still talk about universal laws whether we
personify God = Creator
or see God = Creation or Universe?

Doesn't the proof come out the same?
as long as we agree to define God = something we agree is the ultimate level

Yep. And I already addressed that here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10047689/

The logically objective fact of the highest conceivable standard of divinity remains: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness/perfection as the Creator of all other things that exist.

The construct of the transcendent God is greater than that of the pantheistic god. That is an objective fact of human cognition, as the former is absolutely self-subsistent and resides above the cosmological order, while the latter is contingently existent and/or entwined below. Logically, to presuppose the latter, regardless what is ultimately true, is to beg the question in terms of necessity and possibility.

BreezeWood's problem is the purely psychological obstinacy of one who refuses to back out of his paradigm and objectively acknowledge the entire range of the logical possibilities. Fox suffers from this same shortcoming. I, on the other hand, do not. So I objectify apprehend that BreezeWood might be right, but the objectively highest standard of divinity remains. The former cannot be logically eliminated; in fact, the former is what holds up in the rational and mathematical proofs of infinity.

In any event, BreezeWood necessarily concedes that The Seven Things are objectively true regardless of what he thinks God is ultimately like.

And yet, your alleged pwoofs amount to nothing more than ".... because I say so"

Do you realize that people chuckle and sneer as you literally butcher the English language with hilarious attempts at meaningful sentences?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others. It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.

you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.

.

False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that God exits is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.

What you do with that is up to you.

False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that God exits is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.

no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.

.

The axiom is hardwired, at the very least, bioneurologically, as the fundamental laws of thought are universal. One can objectively and justifiably assert that. To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter. Nevertheless, this assertion in no way, shape or form necessarily precludes that the laws of thought persist above the level of the material realm of being.

R: To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter.

so it is your physiology you will be Admitting to the Everlasting and leaving your Spirit behind -

good luck with that Rawlings.

.

BreezeWood, I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit. I have never said that, ever! I am saying that the only thing I can OBJECTIVELY or SCIENTIFICALLY assert is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life in terms of physical nature, is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired. The rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, including the three laws of organic thought and the axioms thereof are bioneurologically hardwired. That's tautological true.

That is not controversial.

Stop quibbling, going in circles, talking banalities. Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.

I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit - is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life - is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.

are you suggesting there are any forms of life created by the Almighty that are not synonymous with a Spirit - and your Spirit is "hardwired" ?


is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life

that is what you conclude from your "7 Things" -

Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.

sorry, I'm just curious how Flora without a neurological tract becomes hardwired if it is not their Spirit you are talking about .... ( that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying ) and no you are not Hitler, you just remind me of that type of persuasion.

.

I'll ask the questions from here on out.

On the face of them, 'til we get to the rational and mathematical details of #4, is your notion affirmed by or precluded from The Seven Things?i

No.

How could it be? The Seven Things only pertain to what we can objectively assert. Do you know what you're dog is asserting, if anything, about the Seven Things?

 

[Hollie]

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.

.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.
LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?

smh

.

If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.

.

To Infinity and Beyond Transcending our Limitations by Nassim Haramein

Narly, dude. Rawling is a funky "New Ager"

From Amazon book reviews:

Editorial Reviews
Product Description
Black Whole uncovers scientific proof that we are one. The work of physicist, Nassim Haramein, provides insight into the structure of space-time and a new coherent model of the universe. Using the sacred geometry and codes in ancient monuments and documents, the film presents a new look at the reality of which we live.


How cool is that? "Sacred geometry and codes". Those must have been the sacred geometry and codes left by the space aliens after they built the pyramids.

 

[Justin Davis]

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

 

[Tuatara]

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

 

[Justin Davis]

Dear Breezewood: Can you please reply to my questions below?
I am trying to resolve why we miscommunicated so badly
that you thought I was like Hitler which is the exact opposite of my approach
that is all inclusive and universalist, treating all people and views as equally important to the whole.

Also below is the humorous approach if that works better!
Here is the serious approach:

Dear Breezewood: I already posted a reply querying how you came up with
this comparison to Hitler which seems the exact opposite of my nature.

I apologize that the miscommunication between us got so far off the mark
that you got the opposite impression of what I was trying to say.

Please reply to that msg and explain how I am anything like Hitler,
I am most curious to know.

As for this message, I will try to backtrack and find out where we talked past
each other and crossed wires.

1. weren't you saying that the belief in the Christian God
was falsely hardwired?

if not I apologize because I thought you were
negating MD statement about God as Creator

2. Now I saw your msg where you are saying the Almighty exists
but that MD is misportraying God

So my questions are this
a. do you agree that MD's perception of God is hardwired or not
b. if it can change then why are you insulting him or me as if that is going
to inspire anyone to change?
c. if it cannot change then why are you insulting him or me
d. And WHY can't both ways of perceiving God co-exist?

What is WRONG with this
A. atheists and nontheists who see laws and nature in terms of science
B. Buddhist who see spiritual laws in terms of Wisdom and nature that is interconnected
C. pagans who may see the world as life energy in the Creation or Mother Earth itself
D. Christians who personify God as a Creator and distinguish this role from Creation
E. Constitutionalists who look at laws as coming from Natural Laws and Human Nature
where some attribute to God as the source and some say these laws are self-existent

Why can't we focus on the laws we DO agree with
and not haggle over how we see the source of where they came from?

Here is the silly response to your statement that made no sense to me, sorry.

Breezewood is to : Breezewood comparing Emily to Hitler
as
Emily is to : http://mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/440oolong.jpg

"I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a Bunny with a Pancake on its head"

there is no insult intended - to imply all are Sinners as yourself is foolhardy particularly when you are compared with what truly was and will "always" be and then find that objectionable.

Admission to the Everlasting is accomplished before you die not afterwards.


MD's hardwire is ludicrous, insane and factually immoral.

.

How would you know it's ludicrous? You've never once shown that you even understand what it is he's asserting. Unlike your posts we know what MD is talking about. His stuff is objectively true universally. We have no idea what your talking about half the time because you keep asserting things from an undefined and unidentified object of subjectivity. There's a UFO in you head.

 

[Boss]

There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism.

I know... so why do you believe in such things?

Well, obviously, you're befuddled and have to resort to goofy one- liners.

Unfortunately, you deride science for providing a mechanism for understanding the natural world. You would prefer instead to embrace ignorance and superstition. You would prefer instead to accept “the gawds did it” and go on your way. Unfortunately, that’s been the history of Religious fundamentalism.

Creationists/supernaturalists/gods did it ‘ists, are obligated to explain what they mean by "supernatural design". The problem with design arguments is there is no baseline from which one may accurately compare something that exhibits design from that which is natural, and because you're unable make distinctions between the two, you're something of the typical religious extremist.

I've never used the term "supernatural design" and don't have any idea what that might be... Is that what you call it when something comes from nothing through a bang that happens for no reason, causing creation of life through fluke random chance?

I believe spiritual nature created physical reality. There isn't anything "supernatural" about it and you've not proven it to be. I don't care how much you want to equate me with religion or religious extremists, I totally get why you feel so compelled. I am kicking your ass all over the place and you can't refute my arguments. That's common to respond that way.

 

[Justin Davis]

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

As for the idea of God, that's nonsense. You didn't understand did you? The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought. It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist. The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful. Nil probability? You just made that up out of thin air. That's not why they don't believe He exists. They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism.

I know... so why do you believe in such things?

Well, obviously, you're befuddled and have to resort to goofy one- liners.

Unfortunately, you deride science for providing a mechanism for understanding the natural world. You would prefer instead to embrace ignorance and superstition. You would prefer instead to accept “the gawds did it” and go on your way. Unfortunately, that’s been the history of Religious fundamentalism.

Creationists/supernaturalists/gods did it ‘ists, are obligated to explain what they mean by "supernatural design". The problem with design arguments is there is no baseline from which one may accurately compare something that exhibits design from that which is natural, and because you're unable make distinctions between the two, you're something of the typical religious extremist.

I've never used the term "supernatural design" and don't have any idea what that might be... Is that what you call it when something comes from nothing through a bang that happens for no reason, causing creation of life through fluke random chance?

I believe spiritual nature created physical reality. There isn't anything "supernatural" about it and you've not proven it to be. I don't care how much you want to equate me with religion or religious extremists, I totally get why you feel so compelled. I am kicking your ass all over the place and you can't refute my arguments. That's common to respond that way.

Dear Boss and Hollie:
I challenge you to look at scientific demonstration of Spiritual Healing
as both natural and consistent with science AND following the
Christian teachings principles and concepts.

It is both spiritual and natural.

so there is no need to argue that something cannot be both.

the people who see it and call it spiritual will agree it is that.
the people who only believe what science will show will see that it is natural
and follows a predictable process of steps and stages.

So both sides will be satisfied.

But the same process is what it is.

One side may focus and describe it spiritually.
the other may only understand the natural science part.

And there is no contradiction, it's the same healing process!

 

[Justin Davis]

Hollie said:

“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”

Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.

Which equals atheism.