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

[Boss]

Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...

So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.

 

[G.T.]

emilynghiem do you have any links To studies that are not done by religious-based sources - on the spiritual healing thing?

I'm deff. Willing to look at some objective source without a bone to pick.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility.

Wrong. Nevertheless. . . .


EDIT: Post #2854.

I spelled assess as access.

See! Just like I said, a perfect example of the fact that I am no less constitutionally prone to brain farts of wrongful expression or logic. I know how it's spelled, yet misspelled it.

So, Fox, if you have a legitimate criticism, criticize and improve me.

But don't me give crap about my posts being off when you are assessing them from a perspective that starts from an entirely different premise! My perspective won't follow from your premise! It does follow, perfectly so, from mine!

And the fact that you cannot, even if you had all of eternity, refute the cogency of "The Seven Things" should be enough to alert to the fact that I'm onto something that does follow from them.

 

[Hollie]

. . . absolutely irrational and incomprehensible. . . .

It's only comments like this that have ever raised my ire, for all your talk that I have gratuitously insulted persons on this thread.

Now, as promised, I'm going to directly address the core of your fallacious criticisms. I'm going to make sure that you're laced up on the facts and on how things are going to go between you and me from here on out should you choose to stick around. We're going to be very clear on some things, you and I.

First, lose the risible stupidity that the only objectively defensible standard of divine attribution does not constitute the only open-ended perspective that does not subjectively impose any preconceived notions that would beg the question, nitwit, which is the crux of your inability to understand what I'm talking about in terms of infinity. In other words, the essence of my alleged irrationality is in fact your ignorance and intellect bigotry: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044563/

You will not give me any more of your lip about my posts being irrational or incomprehensible with impunity. In the face of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin demonstrated by me (#2697, #2599, #2600), you have no business telling anybody that my posts are not sound. You couldn't possibly have any practical counter to these things.

I strongly recommend you carefully read the posts in the parenthesis in the above and get a clue!

I am in fact an authority on conceptual analysis, mathematical logic, theology and the pertinent history of ideas and events, and have a solid background in the pertinent science. There's no pretense here, and the terms that I use are correct. They'll be no more of this hysterical tripe about me trying to impress you or anyone else. I'm impervious to the herd mentality and the cheap tactics of attacking the man.

Bottom line: I'm no less constitutionally prone to logical errors in expression or in fact than anyone else,. Hence I have no problem whatsoever in anyone bringing such errors to my attention that I might be improved. There'll be no more of your pretentious blather implying that you are in any position to access the validity of my posts from your one-dimensional perspective of time, more to the point, as if you understood the rational and mathematical conceptualizations of infinity and the multidimensional simultaneity of the universal principle of identity.

In other words, you will stop pretending that your perspective is an uncontestable absolute of absolute certainty, nitwit. You will pull your ass out of your cramped paradigm and come to terms with mine or shut up. You will not declare the actually existent and objectively demonstrable paradigm of realty to be irrational, illogical or incomprehensible sans justification without having this post follow you every time you open yap on this thread.

We live in a material reality that is infinity divisible and mathematically quantify it using an infinite set of numeric values. We readily apprehend, both rationally and mathematically, the construct of infinity and do all kinds of calculi in infinity with no sweat. Yet you would imagine that God, the Creator of it all, would be something less than infinitely great, something less than the infinities of His creation in terms of attribution?

And since you don't think you have any responsibility to grasp the premise and particulars of my posts before you pop off, when I see you making factually or logically unsound pronouncements on this thread you will see this post again until such time you retract your baloney. For example, you opined that mathematics couldn’t be used to demonstrate anything about divine attribution at all after reading my post on that very same topic. Perhaps you think I don‘t know what I‘m talking about regarding the distinctions between logical proofs and scientific affirmations. In the meantime, mathematicians have been asserting the opposite of what you averred to be a ridiculous for centuries.

The objectively apprehensible facts of the matter belong to us all, not just you. We all have the right to know if what you're implying holds up in the light of what the laws of organic thought evince about the construct of infinity.

Neither your demagogic tactics nor your dogmatic fanaticism is going to fly against the objective facts around here. You're not going rob others from the opportunity of recognizing the self-evident I AM of human cognition and what necessarily follows while I'm around.

Check?

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility.

Wrong. Nevertheless. . . .


EDIT: Post #2854.

I spelled assess as access.

See! Just like I said, a perfect example of the fact that I am no less constitutionally prone to brain farts of wrongful expression or logic. I know how it's spelled, yet misspelled it.

So, Fox, if you have a legitimate criticism, criticize and improve me.

But don't me give crap about my posts being off when you are assessing them from a perspective that starts from an entirely different premise! My perspective won't follow from your premise! It does follow, perfectly so, from mine!

And the fact that you cannot, even if you had all of eternity, refute the cogency of "The Seven Things" should be enough to alert to the fact that I'm onto something that does follow from them.

Still pressing your abysmal fraud of the manufactured and nonsensical "seven things"? How sad that you pompous, self-promoting thumpers are such dishonest snake-oil salesmen.

 

[Boss]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

 

[Hollie]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.

 

[Hollie]

Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...

So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.

Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.

 

[Boss]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.

I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.

...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol

 

[G.T.]

How life evolved is explained by natural processes.

'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe, and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.

If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.

 

[Boss]

Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.

Yes, I know... Like I said to Taz, whenever you are shown some piece of actual physical evidence to support God, you reject it. You asswipes smugly run around demanding we show you something, we show you, then you dismiss it. The truth is, it doesn't matter what we show you, no amount of evidence will ever convince you of something you are determined not to believe in.

Emily can hook you up with all the links to this, I'll let her handle that.

 

[Hollie]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.

I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.

...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol

As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.

It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.

 

[Hollie]

Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.

Yes, I know... Like I said to Taz, whenever you are shown some piece of actual physical evidence to support God, you reject it. You asswipes smugly run around demanding we show you something, we show you, then you dismiss it. The truth is, it doesn't matter what we show you, no amount of evidence will ever convince you of something you are determined not to believe in.

Emily can hook you up with all the links to this, I'll let her handle that.

That was quite a backstroke. As I anticipated, you decided to shuffle-off as opposed to actually make some connection to your gawds, magical spirit realms and healing of disease by supernatural means.

How can make the pointless claim that you have "showed something" when you have done no such thing"?

 

[Boss]

How life evolved is explained by natural processes.

'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe, and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.

If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.

How life evolved and how life originated is two different questions. "Natural process" can include natural spiritual process.

Nothing could exist prior to the big bang (or origin of the universe) in which spacetime is created for a physical reality to exist. It's a paradox, things can't exist before they have space and time to exist in.

It appears to have had a beginning because it's in motion. How did it get to be in motion? According to Newton, something set it into motion. "Supernatural" is just a word that we apply to things we can't explain with physical nature at this time. Rain was once considered supernatural. Spiritual nature is not supernatural, it is part of nature itself. It enables physical nature, it created physical reality.

 

[G.T.]

You're conflating 'our universe' with the possibility of unlimited multi verses.

They're not ruled out, therefore, nobody can say as an absolute that overall existence even had a beginning.

Before our universe, a quantum vacuum is theoretically said to have existed. That is something, not nothing. Its so much so something that it even has a name and properties, in and of itself.

 

[Hollie]

How life evolved is explained by natural processes.

'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe, and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.

If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.

How life evolved and how life originated is two different questions. "Natural process" can include natural spiritual process.

Nothing could exist prior to the big bang (or origin of the universe) in which spacetime is created for a physical reality to exist. It's a paradox, things can't exist before they have space and time to exist in.

It appears to have had a beginning because it's in motion. How did it get to be in motion? According to Newton, something set it into motion. "Supernatural" is just a word that we apply to things we can't explain with physical nature at this time. Rain was once considered supernatural. Spiritual nature is not supernatural, it is part of nature itself. It enables physical nature, it created physical reality.

And yet, your stuttering and mumbling as an explanation for your invention of something you call "spiritual nature" requires a pre-commitment to belief in your invention of "spiritual nature".

Why not just acknowledge that you're as much a christian Fundie as Rawling?

 

[Boss]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.

I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.

...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol

As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.

It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.

...you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.
And we have already established that will never happen because you will consistently reject all evidence. There are not "various gods" and no one here has made such an argument. Where is that coming from? Your empty little noggin, that's where.

 

[Hollie]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.

I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.

...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol

As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.

It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.

...you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.
And we have already established that will never happen because you will consistently reject all evidence. There are not "various gods" and no one here has made such an argument. Where is that coming from? Your empty little noggin, that's where.

I can't reject evidence you cannot provide. And yes, there are various gods. You may have missed it but your gods are not the only assertions of gods.

In the meantime, where is the evidence for the various spirits that inhabit your magical spirit realms? You claim to have evidence, so, present the evidence. Just remember that your evidence needs to be rational and subject to quantitative review.

 

[Boss]

You're conflating 'our universe' with the possibility of unlimited multi verses.

They're not ruled out, therefore, nobody can say as an absolute that overall existence even had a beginning.

Before our universe, a quantum vacuum is theoretically said to have existed. That is something, not nothing. Its so much so something that it even has a name and properties, in and of itself.

I'm not conflating anything. We don't know of any other universes, we only have theories. Those theories do not conclude that other universes have the same states of physicality as our own, or that any of our physics even apply.

A quantum vacuum has zero-point energy, so how could it possibly set a physical universe into motion without energy? You see, every physical theory we come up with has some flaw.

 

[Boss]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.

I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.

...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol

As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.

It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.

...you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.
And we have already established that will never happen because you will consistently reject all evidence. There are not "various gods" and no one here has made such an argument. Where is that coming from? Your empty little noggin, that's where.

I can't reject evidence you cannot provide. And yes, there are various gods. You may have missed it but your gods are not the only assertions of gods.

In the meantime, where is the evidence for the various spirits that inhabit your magical spirit realms? You claim to have evidence, so, present the evidence. Just remember that your evidence needs to be rational and subject to quantitative review.

It doesn't matter what the evidence is. I could present you God's DNA and you'd reject it and not consider it evidence. You don't care about evidence, you never have and never will. You want to reject God and challenge others to try and make you believe in God. Guess what? You win! No one can ever make you believe in God.

 

[G.T.]

You're conflating 'our universe' with the possibility of unlimited multi verses.

They're not ruled out, therefore, nobody can say as an absolute that overall existence even had a beginning.

Before our universe, a quantum vacuum is theoretically said to have existed. That is something, not nothing. Its so much so something that it even has a name and properties, in and of itself.

I'm not conflating anything. We don't know of any other universes, we only have theories. Those theories do not conclude that other universes have the same states of physicality as our own, or that any of our physics even apply.

A quantum vacuum has zero-point energy, so how could it possibly set a physical universe into motion without energy? You see, every physical theory we come up with has some flaw.

Umm, the whole point is not that multi verses would behave as our own.

The point was - their existence is not ruled out, which means what? It means that we don't know if they're eternal, or can even study them, to be able to assert that in terms of overall existence, 'something came from nothing or else god.'

Its a false choice, as of current knowledge. We are not aware that "nothing" ever was.