Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
Presupper in three d for everyone to see. Dipduckdodge the refutation of the childish tag.
GT is the missing links.
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
- Thread starter newpolitics
- Start date
GT is the missing links.
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
"why would he count that one"
You guys are like five year olds, I can't take it.
Justin: last chance. If you want more links - first deny they exist. Then I'll post them. Mmkay? Last call bud I don't have all night for you to weasel.
GT is the missing links.
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.
I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?
GT is the missing links. I like that meme.
I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?
GT is the missing links. I like that meme.
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
Who is the missing links?
GT is the missing links.
GT is the missing links.
Justin Davis
Senior Member
- Sep 21, 2014
- 791
- 163
- 45
Who is the missing links?
GT is the missing links.
GT is the missing links.
Flailing your Pom Poms is so cute."why would he count that one"
You guys are like five year olds, I can't take it.
Justin: last chance. If you want more links - first deny they exist. Then I'll post them. Mmkay? Last call bud I don't have all night for you to weasel.
That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.
I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?
GT is the missing links. I like that meme.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sweet! GT puts himself down for the Transcendental Argument again and for The Seven Things again, Part I: See Post #3945.
Even Amrchaos, our neighborhood solipsist, should be able to appreciate this one, in spite of the confusion of his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy and, consequently, is earlier misinterpretations of my posts.
Regarding the emboldened portion of your post: as I already explained, yes and no, for they are the means by which we define and describe some things directly and other things indirectly, hence, not in the way in which your expression would suggest.
Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.
This tells me you don't really understand the point that the guy in the video from whom you obviously got your notion, albeit, as mangled, is trying to make! The point the guy in the video is trying to make, which doesn't logically hold up, by the way, is a standard in the materialistic atheist's arsenal used to attack the TAG. It's nothing new to me. It's old news.
Logic is the prescriptive means by which we properly delineate the various properties and processes of existents in order to define and describe how they are, beginning with the normative standards of thought and inference/extrapolation. Hence, the fundamental nature of logic is a priori prescriptive.
Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.
The fundamental nature of the physical laws of nature are a posteriori descriptive as they describe how nature works.
Logic, at the human level, does not directly describe the realities (properties and processes) of nature! Logic is immaterial!
Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.
With the rational delineations of logic within our minds, we a priori establish the normative standards of (1) thought and (2) inference/extrapolation for justified true belief/knowledge, directly, then we should (ought!) objectively apply these standards to what (is!) the apparent reality of the various properties and processes of the existents outside our minds, in order to define and describe how they apparently are: ergo, we indirectly infer/extrapolate the physical laws of nature which are what actually describes, directly, the properties and processes of nature . . . or so we believe based on the assumption that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliably synchronized with the apparent actualities of the properties and processes of the empirical world of being outside our minds.
Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.
Or are you suggesting that we are not bound to the oughts of logic's prescriptive/normative nature and the standards thereof and can just describe reality any damn way we please as if human consciousness had primacy over existence? No. I don't think that's what you really want to say about the laws of logic at the prescriptive level of human apprehension at all.
Or maybe, just maybe, you're conscious of a the logic that would be universally descriptive in nature at a transcendent level of being above it all, you know, for a Mind Whose consciousness would have primacy over all of existence.
Oops. Is that what you're thinking? Did you make a Freudian solip like Mr. Solipsist did earlier?
Even Amrchaos, our neighborhood solipsist, should be able to appreciate this one, in spite of the confusion of his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy and, consequently, is earlier misinterpretations of my posts.
Regarding the emboldened portion of your post: as I already explained, yes and no, for they are the means by which we define and describe some things directly and other things indirectly, hence, not in the way in which your expression would suggest.
Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.
This tells me you don't really understand the point that the guy in the video from whom you obviously got your notion, albeit, as mangled, is trying to make! The point the guy in the video is trying to make, which doesn't logically hold up, by the way, is a standard in the materialistic atheist's arsenal used to attack the TAG. It's nothing new to me. It's old news.
Logic is the prescriptive means by which we properly delineate the various properties and processes of existents in order to define and describe how they are, beginning with the normative standards of thought and inference/extrapolation. Hence, the fundamental nature of logic is a priori prescriptive.
Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.
The fundamental nature of the physical laws of nature are a posteriori descriptive as they describe how nature works.
Logic, at the human level, does not directly describe the realities (properties and processes) of nature! Logic is immaterial!
Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.
With the rational delineations of logic within our minds, we a priori establish the normative standards of (1) thought and (2) inference/extrapolation for justified true belief/knowledge, directly, then we should (ought!) objectively apply these standards to what (is!) the apparent reality of the various properties and processes of the existents outside our minds, in order to define and describe how they apparently are: ergo, we indirectly infer/extrapolate the physical laws of nature which are what actually describes, directly, the properties and processes of nature . . . or so we believe based on the assumption that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliably synchronized with the apparent actualities of the properties and processes of the empirical world of being outside our minds.
Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.
Or are you suggesting that we are not bound to the oughts of logic's prescriptive/normative nature and the standards thereof and can just describe reality any damn way we please as if human consciousness had primacy over existence? No. I don't think that's what you really want to say about the laws of logic at the prescriptive level of human apprehension at all.
Or maybe, just maybe, you're conscious of a the logic that would be universally descriptive in nature at a transcendent level of being above it all, you know, for a Mind Whose consciousness would have primacy over all of existence.
Oops. Is that what you're thinking? Did you make a Freudian solip like Mr. Solipsist did earlier?
Last edited:
This is the nonsense you have cut and pasted multiple times.
How sad for you that you're reduced to just parroting the same slogans and cliches'
As we notice justin dip duck dodges directly denying other links exist, after I offered to provide them once he does so.
I won't let my effort go in vein. First I need the mealy mouthed ***** to sack up and say they don't exist. We will see who the liar is. I'll be sigging it right after you eat crow too Lil guy.
I won't let my effort go in vein. First I need the mealy mouthed ***** to sack up and say they don't exist. We will see who the liar is. I'll be sigging it right after you eat crow too Lil guy.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sweet! GT puts himself down for the Transcendental Argument again and for The Seven Things again, Part II: See Post #3945.
GT, do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?
No, of course not.
The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic according to "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily prescriptive/normative in nature, they do not directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!
Hence, he concludes that they are not necessarily universal truths and do not necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.
And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah." Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.
Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.
However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy: the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments from ignorance/beg the question.
(Oh, by the way, Amrchaos, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)
But:
(And don’t give me any of QW’s barking madness that the principle of identity does not by necessity foundationally and, therefore, universally apply in all forms of logic, which is what he falsely and stupidly implied, including in constructive logic, which merely suspends, as an operation of the principle of identity, the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination for analytic purposes.)
Ah! But what’s the real irony in all of this?
Drum roll
GT—inadvertently, unwittingly, via a Freudian slip —apprehends that logic must ultimately apply to all of reality descriptively, albeit, above the level of human cognition . . . otherwise our assumption that the physical laws of nature are reliably synchronized with organic logic renders everything we think we know about the empirical world beyond is . . . well, problematical to say the least.
Everything the delineations of the laws of organic logic compel us to believe is that there must ultimately be an all-encompassing Agent of Logic (for Whom the laws of logic are not merely prescriptive, but descriptive, as One Whose consciousness has primacy over all of existence) directing traffic from above the level of the cosmological order’s existence, the Agent of Logic Who makes sure that the logic He gave us, which is His own logic, lines up with the logic He gave to the physical laws of nature, which is also His own logic!
GT, stamp #6 of The Sevens Things on your forehead. Hunt down the idiot in that video and stamp it on his too.
Any questions?
GT, do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?
No, of course not.
The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic according to "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily prescriptive/normative in nature, they do not directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!
Hence, he concludes that they are not necessarily universal truths and do not necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.
And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah." Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.
Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.
However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy: the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments from ignorance/beg the question.
(Oh, by the way, Amrchaos, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)
But:
We do not impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition . . . because the latter are the logical necessities of formal logic that do not go away regardless of what labels morons slap on them; we only apply the fallacies of informal logic to (1) the secondary propositions of logical possibility apparent to human cognition when they are fallaciously/mistakenly asserted as if they were (2) logical necessities of human cognition (you know, because they're not actually the latter at all, but the former, i.e., the secondary propositions of logical possibility).
If it were sensible to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, all of the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic would be fallacies, including axioms that never go away like 2 + 2 = 4.
If it were sensible to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, all of the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic would be fallacies, including axioms that never go away like 2 + 2 = 4.
(And don’t give me any of QW’s barking madness that the principle of identity does not by necessity foundationally and, therefore, universally apply in all forms of logic, which is what he falsely and stupidly implied, including in constructive logic, which merely suspends, as an operation of the principle of identity, the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination for analytic purposes.)
Ah! But what’s the real irony in all of this?
Drum roll
GT—inadvertently, unwittingly, via a Freudian slip —apprehends that logic must ultimately apply to all of reality descriptively, albeit, above the level of human cognition . . . otherwise our assumption that the physical laws of nature are reliably synchronized with organic logic renders everything we think we know about the empirical world beyond is . . . well, problematical to say the least.
Everything the delineations of the laws of organic logic compel us to believe is that there must ultimately be an all-encompassing Agent of Logic (for Whom the laws of logic are not merely prescriptive, but descriptive, as One Whose consciousness has primacy over all of existence) directing traffic from above the level of the cosmological order’s existence, the Agent of Logic Who makes sure that the logic He gave us, which is His own logic, lines up with the logic He gave to the physical laws of nature, which is also His own logic!
GT, stamp #6 of The Sevens Things on your forehead. Hunt down the idiot in that video and stamp it on his too.
Any questions?
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Any questions?
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Justin, give it a rest, okay. Let it go. GT is a liar. We know that. Everyone whose had dealings with GT knows he's a liar. Hoillie's pathological liar too, and now I know Emily to an utter nitwit.
Hey, Emily, I got oceanfront property for sale in Arizona! What do I hear for the first bid?
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Looky there! Hollie said something that's right!
Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.
Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature, as if logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does. Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?
Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if logic did not a priori provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.
Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.
Oh, wait! Don't do that after all! She finally got something right. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!
LOL! What boy, you dimwit? You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right! LOL! Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.
Fellow theists in this very thread who said at one point or another they were tired of md's shit:
Breezewood
Boss
Q.w.
Emily
Armchaos has you on ignore
Gt has you dodging the refutation of tag like you're paid to do it.
Holly enjoys poking you retards with a stick and giggling in your face when you copy paste obsessively in return.
Burn those bridges m.d. snake oil. Watch them all burn as you continue to reveal to everyone whom encounters you the gigantic scumbag of a human you are.
Breezewood
Boss
Q.w.
Emily
Armchaos has you on ignore
Gt has you dodging the refutation of tag like you're paid to do it.
Holly enjoys poking you retards with a stick and giggling in your face when you copy paste obsessively in return.
Burn those bridges m.d. snake oil. Watch them all burn as you continue to reveal to everyone whom encounters you the gigantic scumbag of a human you are.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Is it true that the Iranian Embasay in Denmark raises the old Persian Flag?- Started by BackAgain
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
