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

[amrchaos]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

I think. Therefore God is.

But what should God "be" in order to validate God exist from the fact that you think?

I haven't read you post--so I think I have to go back and read them to see if I can grasp your notion of God from them.....

 

[Hollie]

The Highest Conceivable Standard of Divine Attribution Does Not Beg the Question by Precluding the Arguable Potentialities of the Various Forms of Polytheism or Pantheism

The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is the construct of God as a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself, moreover, an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

This doesn't prevent anyone from inserting polytheism in the place of the generic construct if that's one's poison. I already made that clear and why that logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in modal logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I were to write gods or any given descriptor that denotes some form of pantheism, folks would complain about that, wouldn't they?

Yes. Of course they would.

And If not, why not?

We go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution precisely because it is the only all-inclusive standard!

Knock Knock Anybody home?

If we were to start with a lower standard, the obviously higher/highest possibilities would be arbitrarily eliminated. So it is any given lower standard for divine attribution that is subjective and unjustifiably begs the question, not the objectively highest conceivable standard.

The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution allows for the conceptualization and the insertion of divinity as a collective whole of individuals (polytheism) or as a pantheistic whole.

As I wrote elsewhere:

You're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument: from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., the conclusion of the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It is necessary to define/assert the construct of God in the terms of its objectively highest standard of attribution; otherwise, you beg the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But pantheism is not precluded! And this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is (1) conscious of the fact that the objectively highest standard of attribution is a conscious, transcendently non-contingent divinity and is (2) conscious of the fact that he cannot logically rule out that possibility for divinity.​

That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, even classical, polytheistic philosophers: for the sake of simplicity/economy and to make sure they do not preclude any given polytheistic model of divinity, pantheistic model of divinity or monotheistic model of divinity.

In other words, it is understood that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is asserted for the purpose of universal inclusiveness, not to beg the question.

A polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option of a higher degree, as is any given form a pantheism, against the purely material, non-theistic potentiality for origin.

The only reason some are objecting to the universal, philosophical standard of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or to the universal, scientific standard of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin is because it is manifest that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution carries the greatest weight of probability.

Too bad. Whether they be ultimately right or not, the objectively applied imperatives of human logic do not permit them to usurp the issue on the grounds of their fanatical, intellectual bigotry, do not permit them to arbitrarily preclude what they don't believe to be true about God.

Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.

what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?

.

It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of The Seven Things compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him. It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.

mdr: It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of The Seven Things compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him. It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.

that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -

it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.

the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.

.

The simple, yet deeply profound truths of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, the common sense obviously given to you by God that you may know that He exists and what He is like is of no significance to you because you have no faith to believe in anything of any value but yourself. Your god is yourself. You have no faith or confidence in God at all. You don't believe what God has been telling you about Himself all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.

God's "voice" is the commonsensical logic in your mind. As you don't even have enough faith to believe the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you. You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless. You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.

Ultimately, faith is the common sense to believe the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself. God has already proven His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you believe Him or will even take the time to listen to Him because you have no faith or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.

What you lack is faith in God, and because you lack faith in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.

You are the idolater. The only testimony you believe is your own. The only thing you believe in is yourself. The only thing you worship is yourself.

That's the real truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

.
no I am not a christian ... except by persuasive discussion as certainly the parable of Noah is a universal religion in concert to the single Commandment of God to attain Remission to the Everlasting as a life's attainable goal.

.

 

[the_human_being]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

I think. Therefore God is.

But what should God "be" in order to validate God exist from the fact that you think?

I haven't read you post--so I think I have to go back and read them to see if I can grasp your notion of God from them.....

Really not complicated at all. God is Creator. God created man. The man God created was Adam. The name "Adam" means "thinker". Adam was the first creature God breathed his own breath into giving Adam the capabilities of reason, judgment, conscience of actions, the ability to learn, the ability to be taught, etc.

 

[amrchaos]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

I think. Therefore God is.

But what should God "be" in order to validate God exist from the fact that you think?

I haven't read you post--so I think I have to go back and read them to see if I can grasp your notion of God from them.....

Really not complicated at all. God is Creator. God created man. The man God created was Adam. The name "Adam" means "thinker". Adam was the first creature God breathed his own breath into giving Adam the capabilities of reason, judgment, conscience of actions, the ability to learn, the ability to be taught, etc.

Before I go forward, I need to ask--Is your God the same as the implied description in the Bible?

Or is your God "a being that creates and man(Adam in particular), with all the positive attributes that man has, is one of his creations" ?

Both could be the case, but the second is not necessarily equivalent to the first.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we can in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms: everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've ******* had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.

God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!

everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your Seven Things argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.

The Seven Things argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.

Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably did argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man: our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.


Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?

Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.

Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.

Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either (1) the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or (2) might not be true.

There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.

But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.

Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.

How did that happen?

Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.

Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency: a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God is perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.

By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.

It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.

God is perfect, not a liar.

Boss' argument Fails.

You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your 7 Things argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd.

You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls.

I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.

Sorry, Boss, but the notion that logic is a creature/a created thing clearly does not follow from the understanding that God is omnipotent, the Creator of all other things that exist outside Himself proper. Non Sequitur.

Logic was not created. God is the universal Principle of Identity. Our logic is God's logic, conferred on His creation: including the laws of thought, the spiritual and natural laws of morality and the physical laws of nature. Truth is not relative and God as the very Substance and the Ground of logic is the Source and Guarantor of the universal logic that prevails at both the transcendent and temporal realms of being . . . or so the laws of organic thought and the logical ramifications of The Seven Things necessarily hold.

To hold otherwise is sheer irrationalism, the fount of one absurdity after another. In fact, it's absurd to simultaneously hold that The Seven Things are logically true and to hold that logic was created.

And all this handwringing is not going to make these objective facts of human cognition go away.

(An aside: as the false allegation that I am a Jehovah Witness has reared its stupid head again, I am Bible-believing, orthodox Christianity. Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the universal Logos of existence by Whom and for Whom all created things were created and are sustained and held together.)

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.
their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.

what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?

.

It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of The Seven Things compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him. It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.

mdr: It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of The Seven Things compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him. It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.

that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -

it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.

the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.

.

The simple, yet deeply profound truths of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, the common sense obviously given to you by God that you may know that He exists and what He is like is of no significance to you because you have no faith to believe in anything of any value but yourself. Your god is yourself. You have no faith or confidence in God at all. You don't believe what God has been telling you about Himself all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.

God's "voice" is the commonsensical logic in your mind. As you don't even have enough faith to believe the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you. You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless. You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.

Ultimately, faith is the common sense to believe the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself. God has already proven His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you believe Him or will even take the time to listen to Him because you have no faith or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.

What you lack is faith in God, and because you lack faith in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.

You are the idolater. The only testimony you believe is your own. The only thing you believe in is yourself. The only thing you worship is yourself.

That's the real truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

.
no I am not a christian ... except by persuasive discussion as certainly the parable of Noah is a universal religion in concert to the single Commandment of God to attain Remission to the Everlasting as a life's attainable goal.

.

Okay.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

On the Absurdity of Charging that From Nothing, Nothing Comes is an Informal Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance)

The reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the a standing proof, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.

The only fallacy on display by those who argue otherwise is the stupidity that the standing axioms of human cognition and the historical fact of empirical experience are subject to the mere secondary, indemonstrable potentialities of human imagination. But the ultimate substance of this ridiculous allegation is the scientifically indemonstrable presupposition of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, a hidden/undisclosed apriority not put into evidence by the antagonist.

It's a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.

Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.

As I wrote elsewhere:

Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.

All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!

In all forms of logic the proposition that from nothing, nothing comes would in fact be assigned a truth value, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen. Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.​

Logic proceeds from justifiable true belief/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.

The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind, which yields the construct of a transcendent consciousness of ultimate origin, stands in logic, and the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands in science!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.

Hollie

 

[Justin Davis]

Tag has not withstood the test of time retard.

There are entire books refuting Kant, who was as short sighted as your MD but slightly less then you, as his understanding of how to communicate actually shits on yours. You're aweful at it. Sorry to say : (

Tag has been a laughing stock of academia, contrary to you LIE that its been peer reviewed which magically a link to a single peer review of tag escapes your lying ass.

Tag is so simple to refute its actually childish.




Presuppers continue to dip duck dodge in cowardly fashion: 'god created knowledge' is neither universally accepted nor are other possibilities for existence ALL ruled out, which BOTH have to be met for "MTAG" to be an axiom. There's your loss, loser. And, another W for your Captain.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we can in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms: everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've ******* had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.

God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!

everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your Seven Things argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.

The Seven Things argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.

Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably did argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man: our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.


Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?

Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.

Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.

Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either (1) the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or (2) might not be true.

There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.

But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.

Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.

How did that happen?

Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.

Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency: a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God is perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.

By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.

It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.

God is perfect, not a liar.

Boss' argument Fails.

You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your 7 Things argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd.

You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls.

I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.

Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?

 

[Boss]

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we can in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms: everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've ******* had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.

God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!

everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your Seven Things argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.

The Seven Things argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.

Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably did argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man: our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.


Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?

Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.

Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.

Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either (1) the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or (2) might not be true.

There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.

But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.

Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.

How did that happen?

Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.

Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency: a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God is perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.

By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.

It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.

God is perfect, not a liar.

Boss' argument Fails.

You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your 7 Things argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd.

You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls.

I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.

Sorry, Boss, but the notion that logic is a creature/a created thing clearly does not follow from the understanding that God is omnipotent, the Creator of all other things that exist outside Himself proper. Non Sequitur.

Logic was not created. God is the universal Principle of Identity. Our logic is God's logic, conferred on His creation: including the laws of thought, the spiritual and natural laws of morality and the physical laws of nature. Truth is not relative and God as the very Substance and the Ground of logic is the Source and Guarantor of the universal logic that prevails at both the transcendent and temporal realms of being . . . or so the laws of organic thought and the logical ramifications of The Seven Things necessarily hold.

To hold otherwise is sheer irrationalism, the fount of one absurdity after another. In fact, it's absurd to simultaneously hold that The Seven Things are logically true and to hold that logic was created.

And all this handwringing is not going to make these objective facts of human cognition go away.

(An aside: as the false allegation that I am a Jehovah Witness has reared its stupid head again, I am Bible-believing, orthodox Christianity. Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the universal Logos of existence by Whom and for Whom all created things were created and are sustained and held together.)

Sorry Rawlings, you're not supporting your argument. You are simply saying that I am being illogical and irrational, while being illogical and irrational yourself. You then mutter some nonsense about logic being God's logic, as if other things are not belonging to God. All things are God's, including all things we are consciously aware of in our reality which God also created. What's illogical is to say God is omnipotent creator of all things, then parsing out logic as something beyond God's ability to create or control.... but then, insisting it is God's. This is simply put, absurdity heaped on absurdity, which is what you ironically accuse me of.

Without time, space, reality, and a material universe for it to apply, what is the purpose of logic? Without an intelligent mind to use it as a tool of understanding, what purpose would it serve? Logic is useful to humans attempting to understand their material reality and universe. And for the record, our understanding and perception of logic may not be always true. We don't know for sure, we can't know, it's not possible for us to know, we can only believe we know.

I know that you think you're smart and you've figured God out, but let me tell you son, you're not that smart. None of us are. We're little monkeys amusing ourselves with trivial little grunt sounds we call words, to which we've applied all kinds of meaning and reasoning. It doesn't mean we're anywhere near right or close to the truth. Only God knows truth. We can philosophize, we can theologize, we can rationalize and conceptualize. We can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth.

 

[Boss]

Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?

**** you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.

 

[emilynghiem]

Truth isn't relative.

Absolute and Universal truth is by definition absolute and universal.

But our EXPRESSION Perception and EXPERIENCE of the truth
IS relative, and can be as unique as each person is!

Justin it is NOT either or. But "all of the above"

For example the same universal truths taught as Justice or Cause and Effect/Karma
are EXPRESSED differently using different terms in Christianity and Buddhism
but are still talking about the SAME spiritual process.

Christians use the term sin
Buddhists use the term karma

but they both mean conditions carried on the conscience
that bias and limit our perception and reactions so that we are not
perfectly unbiased, detached or free of sin. We still react to conditions.

Justin, only Jesus was so pure and free of sin he was not subject to karmic conditioning.

Justin, the rest of us humans have BIASES due to our personal preferences,
culture, language, etc. So our Perceptions and Expressions of "absolute/universal truth"
are still going to come out as RELATIVE.

You can see here, some people relate more to God as Creator
while others see God as impersonal and others see life/the universe in nontheistic terms.

The SAME universal laws are true for all of us.
But our Expressions and Perceptions come out different
and are RELATIVE to our experiences in life and how we see things from our perspective.

This does NOT negate there being Universal Absolutes.

There is both Absolutes and Relatives going on at the same time
and these can be in harmony without conflict.

I hope you can see this!

 

[emilynghiem]

Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?

**** you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.

Please Boss do not give in to the same temptation of just resorting to namecalling and FU.
Thank you for being honest and transparent about how you feel,
but please do not give up. M.D. and Justin are trying, just like Hollie and GT are trying.

I can see the frustration is mutual, and don't see any need to insult anyone here.
If it happens I'm sorry for that and hope everyone can just work through that and get it out of the way.

Everyone has strong points and corrections to offer,
so I hope we can bring out the best from each one
and forgive/resolve the worst that is coming out also.

Sorry, but apparently that is part of the human process.

As we dig deeper and deeper into all the levels discussed here,
all the dirt and hurt comes out that has been attached to these issues.

So all that needs to be cleaned out int he process
of hashing out the points. the emotional baggage has to be resolved too.

Boss, please see this as a good thing, a cleansing out process,
and maybe we can get past it faster. Sorry please remember not to
take other people's projections personally if it's just them venting their own past grievances.

I see all people here are committed to uncovering and defending the truth
as we know and see it. We make mistakes but we can work those out as we go.

Sorry for this Boss, this is why forgiveness is so important
so we don't get stuck in the mud when it starts to fly,
but keep moving forward to make progress regardless of all the dirt we dig up.

I respect your points and want you to succeed in making them clear.
Please be encouraged and keep going, and let's try to get past the projections going back and forth.
I think we are all bigger than that, in the end where we are heading with this, but I guess we just have to go through that for now. People need to vent because there has been so much garbage and blame
dumped back and forth over these issues, so it is coming out in the process.

 

[emilynghiem]

.
their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.

what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?

.

It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of The Seven Things compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him. It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.

mdr: It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of The Seven Things compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him. It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.

that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -

it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.

the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.

.

The simple, yet deeply profound truths of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, the common sense obviously given to you by God that you may know that He exists and what He is like is of no significance to you because you have no faith to believe in anything of any value but yourself. Your god is yourself. You have no faith or confidence in God at all. You don't believe what God has been telling you about Himself all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.

God's "voice" is the commonsensical logic in your mind. As you don't even have enough faith to believe the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you. You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless. You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.

Ultimately, faith is the common sense to believe the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself. God has already proven His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you believe Him or will even take the time to listen to Him because you have no faith or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.

What you lack is faith in God, and because you lack faith in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.

You are the idolater. The only testimony you believe is your own. The only thing you believe in is yourself. The only thing you worship is yourself.

That's the real truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

Dear M.D. Thanks for backing off the personal attacks
and sticking to spelling out the content of your objections and responses.

However, here with BreezeWood I think this is definitely projection.

BW keeps objecting to LIMITING the notion of God to something we perceive and
represent for our own convenience and interests.

BW keeps pointing out that the Almighty is greater than what we perceive.

So BW is trying to be more SELFLESS and IMPERSONAL about it,
instead of people PROJECTING our own self-image on God which comes across as idolatrous!

I don't think what you've said here applies to BW,
but actually explains BW's very objections, where you actually agree something is amiss.

I think the problem both you and BW have is inability or unwillingness to
FORGIVE the fact that people approach or frame God/the Almighty differently.

So you both accuse the other of projecting idolatrous images of God.

You both seem to be saying similar, that these projections run into conflicts or contradictions.

Since both you and BW are essentially arguing similar,
the only reason you do not AGREE with each other is you do not forgive each other's ways of saying the SAME THING!

You don't trust each other's way of presenting, and feel the other person is flawed
and not acknowledging their own bias. Your issue is with each other.

No. BreezeWood is trying to put God into the relativist box. God is not a liar.

I think BreezeWood sees you as trying to pigeonhole God into a box
that isn't big enough to contain the whole of God.

I agree with how Justin explains that yes God can still be greater than any of these things.
And I think you said also that God as Creator does not negate other aspects of God as well.

Somehow BW does not trust Christians to teach God correctly
but points to the religion and idolatry associated with Christianity.

So that is where BW is stuck, by not forgiving or trusting Christians in general.

From BW messages, the Almighty is something greater than the selfish religious agenda
that BW thinks you and I are pushing.

BW is trying NOT to put God into a box.

I blame some kind of bias and distrust against Christians
so that BW rejects perceived attempt by Christians to express God.

It is some kind of anti-Christian bias.
And if that is resolved, then BW should be able to resolve
views of God with you, me or anyone else without this issue coming up!

 

[emilynghiem]

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.

Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.

Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men? Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?

I said this: "God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation."

You imply I said this: "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."

Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?

Here's your argument: "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.

Sorry but that doesn't work.
.

God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.

God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.

Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.

What? The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic. God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism. Truth isn't relative.

No Justin, YOU are the one not making any sense. You are claiming "God is Logic" ...Well okay, God is the Universe... God is the Sun... God is the Moon... God is Earth... God is Nature... God is Energy... God is Light... God is Humanity... God is the Wind... God is the Rain... God is the Trees... God is the Birds... on and on!

God either created everything and everything is God's creation, or God didn't. You can't run to both arguments as you try to hold both positions to be true. That is irrational, and quite frankly, illogical. I'm sorry if you don't get that, maybe we just have two different views of God? MY God created Logic and is not bound by Logic itself. Do you honestly think if omnipotent God intended to circumvent logic, that wouldn't be possible? If so, then you simply don't believe in an omnipotent God like I do.

Dear Boss:
I think Justin made it clear that God as Creator does not preclude other roles or representations of God.

I don't understand why you and Justin have to reject each other's views.

I am perfectly fine talking about God's laws or universal laws/truth
REGARDLESS if someone focuses on God = Creator or God =Creation with no separation
and likewise if someone says God = Author of truth, logic science or God = laws of truth, logic, science.

If we had to agree perfectly, of course we'd never get anywhere!
Even husbands and wives married for generations don't agree on everything
and they still manage to get along and make decisions together DESPITE those conflicting differences.

Boss from where I am, I can see that if Justin is OK with God = Creator plus other things,
then this should not be an issue either.

Even though you and Justin set up the parameters differently,
the laws of God or science/logic are the same! in either set up!

So it's okay this isn't a condition that has to be fixed, it can be left open to your way or Justin's way
of setting it up and the laws still come out the same.

Boss it is like how some people divide the trinity differently
but it's still the same God:
Some people don't get the trinity and just talk about God, and reject the idea of three levels.
Others say the trinity is all one God, but some will say Christ is the body or people
and the Holy Spirit joins man and God, while I will align the Holy Spirit with the
church body and say Christ is the law joining man and God. So those two
interpretations don't agree perfectly, but we still agree there are three levels through which God
manifests and has relationships, and these are all one in spirit, even if we don't divide the levels the same way.

So people COULD argue forever and ever in circles
if God is one or three, or what do the three levels represent,
and not everyone will agree on that; but we CAN still agree it is still one God
even though we represent it differently than the next person does.

 

[emilynghiem]

.
their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.

what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?

.

I

Yeah. I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you. Check?

I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir! Check?

And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing? Good. Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.

Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head. I see what you mean now about atheists now. I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage. Now they run like girls.

Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.

What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong. That's moonbat crazy.

But isn't that logical? You have your answer.

Yeah. Why am wondering? Without God we're all moonbat crazy. I forgot. I remember when I was moonbat crazy before the Holly Spirit got a hold of me and straightened me out.

I'd say without forgiveness we drive ourselves and others crazy
projecting old issues from the past and repeating them.

So the part of the Holy Spirit that I appreciate most
is the more we forgive the more we receive:
more understanding, more healing, more insights and wisdom,
more solutions and more grace to share and uplift one another.

 

[Boss]

I don't understand why you and Justin have to reject each other's views.

I don't understand either, it's as if he and Rawlings want to totally contradict themselves in order to condemn me and disagree, then run back to their viewpoint and gloat about that! I totally don't get why either of them feel the need to do this. I've not disagreed with MD's 7 Things argument, which Justin also agrees with, so what's the problem? Is it a personality clash thing? A mental disorder? I totally don't get it. God can't be the omnipotent creator of all things, and also not the creator of logic or beyond the constraints of how we comprehend logic. It's just not possible for God to be both those things. Yet, here they are, leaping from one position to the other, in order to criticize me and hurl insults at me.... then leaping back and pretending that I have somehow challenged their view! It's mind numbing.

Boss from where I am, I can see that if Justin is OK with God = Creator plus other things,
then this should not be an issue either.

But God is not "things" ...God is God. If I create a cake, I am NOT the cake! You can wax esocentric and say that part of me is in the cake, but I can never be the cake I created. Justin is trying to say that God didn't create logic, God IS logic. Well then, God didn't create anything, God IS those things! God ISN'T omnipotent, God is constrained by logic He didn't create. I simply cannot accept that incarnation of God. MY God is not "other things" because God is not a thing, God is the Creator of everything, including our perception of reality and logic.

So it's okay this isn't a condition that has to be fixed, it can be left open to your way or Justin's way

But Justin (and MD) continue to jump ship on their way! They want to completely abandon the notion that God is The Creator of ALL and omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, and claim that God did not create logic and God is somehow constrained by this logic He didn't create... THEN, they want to leap back to their "other" way and claim I've contested that! It's as if they want to have things BOTH ways, depending on whether they are attacking ME!

I am honestly beginning to think MD and Justin are the same person, and it's someone who has a grudge against me personally. They are saying virtually the same shit over and over again, and making NO rational sense. All these posters here who don't believe in anything Spiritual at all, and these two are tripping over each other to totally abandon their views in order to condemn ME... then run back to their view and claim I've contradicted them! It's ******* mental!

I've patiently put up with it for days now, and they just keep on doing the same thing. In unison... in lockstep... Seriously, I think it's the SAME poster!

 

[Hollie]

Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.

Hollie

That's a better argument than you have offered so far.

I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.