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

[G.T.]

Justin, your facts of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.

In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.





Or, keep on with the tired ad hom crutch as we know you will.

And onto substance - the presupper cannot address #'s one and two above.

There's a reason for that. Vampires don't see their reflection

 

[sealybobo]

Still cock blocking, I see. Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your “feelings” of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration

Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

The only thing wrong with Christianity are the Christians. I am by no means a bible thumper. I have no desire to defend the bible or any of it's teachings. I will say that whether he was real or not, the teachings of Jesus were as true in his day as they are now. Very few works of literature can stand the test of time like that.

I find it amazing that people can get caught up in political parties, sports franchises and the country they happened to be born in. None of these have singular or consistent ideals. But a group of people who believe in, if nothing else, one of the best men in history are "stupid & misled".

I'm sure if you ask a Muslim they'll say the same thing about Mohammad.

And I have a problem with Jesus if he said this: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Only I don't believe he said that. I think someone who was coming up with a new religion said he said that 100 years after he was supposedly crucified.

And Jesus said Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days and lived to tell about it. This was not an allegory. He said it matter of fact. Does that stand the test of time? I doubt it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.

And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.

Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.

Is that it?

 

[sealybobo]

At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them. Why did they start lying? Maybe your arguments don't hold water? Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth. Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?

Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this. Ok maybe something did. Why does that something have to be a god? And why the lies? Why lie and say god visited your ancestors? I know! It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven. That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking. Grow up. And point number two is wrong:

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Read them as first presented. The first five.

Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.

See absolutely no differences?


Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.

Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........

to now......

God is "biomechanically hardwired."




And that's ME changing my views?


My views have remained steadfast.


I believe that we exist.

I believe the cosmos exist.

Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.

Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them


That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.

I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.

Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.

Hence:

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Simple.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.

And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.

Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.

Is that it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. The Seven Things are the only thing I'm talking about. The parenthetical is an aside.

 

[sealybobo]

Read them as first presented. The first five.

Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.

See absolutely no differences?


Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.

Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........

to now......

God is "biomechanically hardwired."




And that's ME changing my views?


My views have remained steadfast.


I believe that we exist.

I believe the cosmos exist.

Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.

Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them


That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.

I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.

Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.

Hence:

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Simple.

No God can't be "ruled out". The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists. If if's and buts were candy and nuts...

None of this proves anything. NEXT!

 

[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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.

Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.

Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.

Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.

And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.

Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.

Is that it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. The Seven Things are the only thing I'm talking about. The parenthetical is an aside.

Ok then.

1. We exist! So what?
2. The cosmological order exists! So what?
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out! So do Leprechauns.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness! IF?
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! So what? And you can't verify he does. Seems to us it's all in your heads.
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)! Why not?
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Why is this true?

It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.

Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.

Boss has given way better arguments for why a generic god exists.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.

And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.

Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.

Is that it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. The Seven Things are the only thing I'm talking about. The parenthetical is an aside.

Yeah. The revised "seven things". The "five things" was an unmitigated disaster so you needed to immediately start kicking that dead horse argument.

 

[G.T.]

Well, worded like that I no longer agree with #3 - and you DAMN sure changed the wording and owe me an apology. But I don't want one. Its meaningless from a charlatan. Your snake oil faux logic is a terrible joke.

 

[G.T.]

Justin, your facts of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.

In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.





Or, keep on with the tired ad hom crutch as we know you will.

And onto substance - the presupper cannot address #'s one and two above.

There's a reason for that. Vampires don't see their reflection

Presupper dipduckdodge

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.

Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.

Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.

Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.

Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.

I can’t believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.
Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

 

[sealybobo]

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan

“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”- Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul. Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not 'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion. My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers. And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?

There you go imagining things that aren't real again. The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)

The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.

Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.

Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.

How many days are you going to keep on with this very weak argument? Why there is no god

1. There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
   Argument from ignorance.
   
   A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
   
   The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
   
   Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
   
   Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god. [Video]
   
   See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.
   
   
2. Atheists should prove god doesn’t exist.
   Russell’s teapot.
   
   The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.
   
   See also: The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan, Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster.
   
   
   
   

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Read them as first presented. The first five.

Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.

See absolutely no differences?


Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.

Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........

to now......

God is "biomechanically hardwired."




And that's ME changing my views?


My views have remained steadfast.


I believe that we exist.

I believe the cosmos exist.

Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.

Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them


That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.

I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.

Well, you didn't get these ideas from me. I never said God existed in our minds or that God is hardwired in our minds. I said that the knowledge of God, beginning with the idea of God, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are a priori developed are hardwired. In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that God (the Creator) does not exist without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that God does exist are hardwired axioms of human cognition.

Hence:

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Simple.

No God can't be "ruled out". The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists. If if's and buts were candy and nuts...

None of this proves anything. NEXT!

Yes, of course, because if God exists is objective. We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God. If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. . . .

Simple.