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

[Hollie]

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!

Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

An argument only the religiously insane could accept.

I'm guessing that, as with so much of your proselytizing, you simply ignore the self-refuting nature of your babbling.

 

[Hollie]

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!

".... and the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands in science!"

Actually, dear, that's a lie and a falsehood. As you fundie zealots are unschooled and uneducated in the sciences, you shouldn't feel a need to promote that ignorance on a public forum where you open yourself to ridicule.

Really dude, avoid relating to science matters you are clueless about.

 

[peach174]

Here is proof
Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

1. No, Justin does not get into all the complicated details that M.D. does.
M.D. can barely carry on an argument with someone else like you or me,
he certainly cannot create another persona like Justin to argue with.

Where are you getting they are the same person?

That is as far fetched as M.D. calling people LIARS just because of an issue!

If you can understand that Justin and M.D. are NOT the same person,
maybe M.D. can understand people are NOT lying but expressing honestly what they think and maybe making errors
but not lying!

Whatever is causing that impression, we just have to forgive and cancel it out
and it can go away. If we keep distrusting each other, these obstructions haunt us.

I don't get where they are coming from either, but the more
we forgive and let the love of truth correct any such errors or misjudgments
then these anomalies will go away.

It's like "stumbling blocks" trying to trip us up, so we have to be bigger than the rocks in the road we could trip over.

2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.

they are blending them together as one!

Some people will say God IS the Creation.
or the Word of God IS God.

The Word means the law, so logic is part of the law. Logos the Word.

People don't always separate this from God.

Just know Justin is blending them together
as so synonymous, God with Logic, they become one.

Some people understand the Universe as ALL THINGS
with no beginning or no end. So that is GOD to them.
They will not understand how can you isolate or personify
God as Creator if God is the Creation itself!

Please understand people divide the spiritual spectrum differently.

To us, it seems contradictory, but that is their system.

So Boss the wisest thing to do is to use
* your system for you
* BW system for BW
* Justin's system for Justin
* MD's system for MD
and we can all align our views as parallels
they are not gonig to be perfect matches
we cannot apply your system to Justin
or Justin system to you because you do not
define Creator/God/Logic the same way.

Justin blends God and Logic together as one,
BW may call All things the Almighty and not separate God as creator.

The whole point is to get past those differences in how we represent God
and see it is the same God anyway, just bigger than all our ways of dividing and explaining the aspects of God
on different levels.

Boss have you ever run into people who disagreed on the Trinity?
This is the same phenomena: one God but people divide it up differently and it's not the same for each person.

Boss if you can be OK with this, that will help
Justin and MD be OK with this. If we are all equally
uncomfortable then we stay stuck. We've got to learn
to be OK that we do not represent God the same way though it's the same God.

We are going to have to equally give and take
and leave some room for weird differences we can't explain or make no sense from our system to theirs.
let each use their own system and work it out the best we can, okay?

Thanks, Boss
Please keep trying to be the bigger person
and you will inspire others to be bigger and not be so petty and distrustful as well.
we all have to help each other rise above the petty differnces and see the bigger picture!

Keep up that effort, let go of the negatives
and let's focus on the positives. the points will connect
and create a path and process for us to follow to get somewhere
instead of getting stuck on sticking points. sorry for those
but we need to learn to get past the little things if we are going to take on bigger things....

RE:

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.

To some people they do not distinguish God/Creator from Creation, so the Creation/Universe being infinite and eternally self-existent is the equivalent of God to them.

My bf beliefs about God are somewhere in between distinguishing God as Creator the way Christians do, but seeing God as something greater because he can't relate to the personified God either.

People have all kinds of views on this, Boss.

If we are going to work with all people, we are just going to have to forgive some of these anomalies or differences, and try to focus on what is important about God's laws or logic
that we do agree to follow, what needs correction to establish truth/justice, and what are these petty points that are going to differ or be outright contradictory that we can "forgive" and still reach agreement on waht matters.

Boss in the end, it doesn't matter if God is Creator or God is Creation,
the universal laws of science/logic/nature work the same either way.

What IS a problem is if Justin cannot work with you or you cannot work with Justin
because of your differences here. I can work with both of you, so I know it is possible
to get past this point. If you cannot forgive and work together, you both have some
mutual issues.

I sense something is wrong because
* M.D. who normally sticks objectively to arguments will DERAIL and start
namecalling and saying "I'm a liar" which is the opposite of my nature, purpose and intent
* and you will accuse Justin and M.D. of being the same person which is not possible.
M.D. cannot even imagine how another person thinks besides himself
how can he argue with himself as another persona?

So get rid of that distrust issue between you and Justin
and I think you will be ok with this God/Logic/Creator issue.
It isn't going to be perfect on our side, we are going to have shortcomings
and flaws in how we represent God. Like trying to stick a 3D object in a 2D rendering,
or a 4D object in a 3D drawing it isn't going to be perfect.

We just hve to know we are TRYING to talk about the same thing,b
but we are lopping off different angles and compromising how we represent
the infinite God using finite terms. it's not going to be the same for all people
and will have inconsistencies here and there.

 

[G.T.]

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!

1. No, Justin does not get into all the complicated details that M.D. does.
M.D. can barely carry on an argument with someone else like you or me,
he certainly cannot create another persona like Justin to argue with.

Where are you getting they are the same person?

That is as far fetched as M.D. calling people LIARS just because of an issue!

If you can understand that Justin and M.D. are NOT the same person,
maybe M.D. can understand people are NOT lying but expressing honestly what they think and maybe making errors
but not lying!

Whatever is causing that impression, we just have to forgive and cancel it out
and it can go away. If we keep distrusting each other, these obstructions haunt us.

I don't get where they are coming from either, but the more
we forgive and let the love of truth correct any such errors or misjudgments
then these anomalies will go away.

It's like "stumbling blocks" trying to trip us up, so we have to be bigger than the rocks in the road we could trip over.

2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.

they are blending them together as one!

Some people will say God IS the Creation.
or the Word of God IS God.

The Word means the law, so logic is part of the law. Logos the Word.

People don't always separate this from God.

Just know Justin is blending them together
as so synonymous, God with Logic, they become one.

Some people understand the Universe as ALL THINGS
with no beginning or no end. So that is GOD to them.
They will not understand how can you isolate or personify
God as Creator if God is the Creation itself!

Please understand people divide the spiritual spectrum differently.

To us, it seems contradictory, but that is their system.

So Boss the wisest thing to do is to use
* your system for you
* BW system for BW
* Justin's system for Justin
* MD's system for MD
and we can all align our views as parallels
they are not gonig to be perfect matches
we cannot apply your system to Justin
or Justin system to you because you do not
define Creator/God/Logic the same way.

Justin blends God and Logic together as one,
BW may call All things the Almighty and not separate God as creator.

The whole point is to get past those differences in how we represent God
and see it is the same God anyway, just bigger than all our ways of dividing and explaining the aspects of God
on different levels.

Boss have you ever run into people who disagreed on the Trinity?
This is the same phenomena: one God but people divide it up differently and it's not the same for each person.

Boss if you can be OK with this, that will help
Justin and MD be OK with this. If we are all equally
uncomfortable then we stay stuck. We've got to learn
to be OK that we do not represent God the same way though it's the same God.

We are going to have to equally give and take
and leave some room for weird differences we can't explain or make no sense from our system to theirs.
let each use their own system and work it out the best we can, okay?

Thanks, Boss
Please keep trying to be the bigger person
and you will inspire others to be bigger and not be so petty and distrustful as well.
we all have to help each other rise above the petty differnces and see the bigger picture!

Keep up that effort, let go of the negatives
and let's focus on the positives. the points will connect
and create a path and process for us to follow to get somewhere
instead of getting stuck on sticking points. sorry for those
but we need to learn to get past the little things if we are going to take on bigger things....

Emily, boss makes 4-5 people in this very thread that thought md and justin are the same person.

perhaps there's something to it? perhaps its axiomatic.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Justin and Boss, M.D. and BreezeWood:
I see there are some sticking points with things like:
* if God = Creator then God cannot be = Logic if this is separate and created by the Creator
* if God = Creator than God cannot be the greater Almighty that is greater than just the Creator

Justin especially, since I believe you may have greater understanding of the Christian calling
while Boss and M.D. are struggling,
can I please ask that we make a commitment to FORGIVE each other our differences FIRST, and then clear the way to receive insights and understanding how to RESOLVE those differences SECOND.

Boss wants to see the corrections first.
But the namecalling and ugliness seems to be getting in the way
and need to be removed. In order to see clearly HOW to resolve or correct issues.

The only thing I know that invites that kind of negative energy and thoughts
is UNFORGIVENESS

this is like a wormhole that twists reality and invites corrupted feelings
and perceptions

Can we agree to REMOVE the points of Unforgiveness between us
and see if that helps straighten out the rest?

there is something negative SKEWING the perceptions here
for MD. to be namecalling and accusing me of lying
and for Boss to be so frustrated and baffled as to believe
Justin and MD are the same person. That is not natural.

Justin if you and MD are fellow Christians
May I please join you in prayer that all things unforgiven
be removed from this equation and replaced with only
the understanding and wisdom of God that will help us be aligned in Christ.

Thank you in Jesus name Amen!

 

[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.

Dear Boss and GT:

This message from Justin is arguing about different things.

Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.

MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.

Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.

Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
* God's absolute truth cannot be relative
* if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless

MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.

GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.

if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Dear Boss and GT:

This message from Justin is arguing about different things.

Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.

MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.

Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.

Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
* God's absolute truth cannot be relative
* if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless

MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.

GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.

if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.

But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!

 

[emilynghiem]

This is no good, Emily.
1. Truth is not relative.
2. We're not God.

That's all.

Dear M.D. Please see my reply to Justin.
That God's Absolute/Universal Truth is by definition Absolute
But our PERCEPTION and EXPRESSION of it is RELATIVE.

2. Because "We're not God"
then our expressions are short of God.

So our expressions are not absolute/infinite but are representations that are finite.

Do you agree that man's scope is limited compared with God's?

So I am NOT saying that God's truth is relative,
I am saying our HUMAN Representation of truth is relative.

Is this more clear? Thanks!

P.S. can you and Justin please give some background on both of yourselves
to show you are not the same person. For some reason this has come up
and caused an issue of distrust to skew communications. if this can please
be resolved, that will be one barrier out of the way that is throwing wrenches into the system we don't need.
Thanks!

I see from your profiles MD. calls himself a classic liberal
while Justin is a Second Amendment advocate. Can you go into
details about your background on what issues brought you into this forum
so we can see you are from different paths and not the same persona? Thanks

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Boss and GT:

This message from Justin is arguing about different things.

Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.

MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.

Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.

Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
* God's absolute truth cannot be relative
* if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless

MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.

GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.

if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.

But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!

If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?

We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.

Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.

How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?

 

[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.)

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, your argument is that God created everything (not God created everything apart from Himself); therefore, God created logic.

That does not follow!

When you are asked: "How do you know God created logic, Boss?"

You answer: "Because God created everything."

Nonresponsive!

God did not create everything, Boss, did He? That premise is not rational, is it? It's not sound, is it?

 

[G.T.]

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.

Dear Boss and GT:

This message from Justin is arguing about different things.

Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.

MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.

Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.

Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
* God's absolute truth cannot be relative
* if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless

MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.

GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.

if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.

But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!

If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?

We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.

Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.

How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?

I told you a long time ago, Emily.

I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.

I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.

I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.

So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.

I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.

These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.

 

[peach174]

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, your argument is that God created everything (not God created everything apart from Himself); therefore, God created logic.

That does not follow!

When you are asked: "How do you know God created logic, Boss?"

You answer: "Because God created everything."

Nonresponsive!

God did not create everything, Boss, did He? That premise is not rational, is it? It's not sound, is it?

He created everything in this universe.
We know very little or next to nothing yet about parallel worlds.

 

[sealybobo]

Here is proof
Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.

It's all in their heads. They were even heavily sedated. Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out. Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates. Grow up.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Boss and GT:

This message from Justin is arguing about different things.

Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.

MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.

Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.

Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
* God's absolute truth cannot be relative
* if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless

MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.

GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.

if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.

But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!

If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?

We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.

Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.

How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?

I told you a long time ago, Emily.

I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.

I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.

I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.

So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.

I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.

These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.

Dear me!

GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
if the sentiment is mutual.

I just know that where I treat people with respect,
they do the same, or try to.

how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
if we treat each other as trash?

It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
the only things we can change are the relations in our range.

If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?

Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.

You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.

here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
Rachel s Challenge
If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!

 

[G.T.]

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.

Dear Boss and GT:

This message from Justin is arguing about different things.

Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.

MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.

Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.

Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
* God's absolute truth cannot be relative
* if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless

MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.

GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.

if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.

But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!

If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?

We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.

Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.

How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?

I told you a long time ago, Emily.

I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.

I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.

I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.

So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.

I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.

These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.

Dear me!

GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
if the sentiment is mutual.

I just know that where I treat people with respect,
they do the same, or try to.

how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
if we treat each other as trash?

It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
the only things we can change are the relations in our range.

If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?

Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.

You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.

here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
Rachel s Challenge
If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!

Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?

Think.


Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.

If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.

You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here is proof
Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.

It's all in their heads. They were even heavily sedated. Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out. Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates. Grow up.

Dear Sealybobo: My friend Olivia had an out of body experience where she saw her young son crying not to leave yet.
She never told him, but thought it was just a dream/vision to tell her that she had a lot more work to do in this lifetime.

Years later, her son told her that very same night he had a dream and saw her and begged her not to go.

So on what level did they both have a connection on this "astral" plane?

SB I have a friend who studied psychometrics and learned to control lucid dream states, so he could travel and be aware of where he was while he was in dream states. He said most people were standing still in that plane, because they were not aware of where they went while asleep and partially out of their bodies.

In Scott Peck's book on the exorcism sessions he and his team studied as therapy for two incapacitated schizophrenic patients, they all described witnessing the same demonic faces and voices.

so even if that was a mass hallucination on the astral plane, they all shared the same perceptions.

Just because you and I don't have these experiences
doesn't mean other people aren't having them.

Just because they are not visible in the realistic 3D world
does not mean they aren't real signals and energy/waves on higher planes or wavelengths.

One of my friends said that analog technology was so sensitive, it could pick up noise
and signals of "voices" in people's heads and show these WERE registering on some level.
So they weren't imaginary but higher dimensional and we just can't always detect them on our normal levels.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Boss and GT:

This message from Justin is arguing about different things.

Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.

MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.

Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.

Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
* God's absolute truth cannot be relative
* if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless

MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.

GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.

if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.

But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!

If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?

We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.

Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.

How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?

I told you a long time ago, Emily.

I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.

I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.

I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.

So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.

I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.

These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.

Dear me!

GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
if the sentiment is mutual.

I just know that where I treat people with respect,
they do the same, or try to.

how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
if we treat each other as trash?

It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
the only things we can change are the relations in our range.

If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?

Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.

You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.

here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
Rachel s Challenge
If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!

Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?

Think.


Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.

If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.

You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.

I'm saying even if we cannot prove/disprove, we can reach agreement
if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.

So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
we can do more to resolve them.

So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
if people don't forgive, they get stuck
if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
does the more we forgive the conflicts.

Note: forgiveness does not mean passively allowing or enabling wrongs to continue.
it means to detach from the emotional burden of holding onto the injustice.
you can actually address and correct issues of injustice more clear-headed
by forgiving first and then using restored relations to resolve the actual grievances.
this is much more effective than going into conflicts with loaded guns expecting to resolve
things by force, which tends to backfire and cause backlash after using force for some things.
it doesn't solve the problem in the longrun. and only after people forgive can they reason
rationally and work toward sustainable solutions and prevention. usually that isn't possible
until after they forgive and heal because the parties are too combative and can't work together yet.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Dear Boss and GT:

This message from Justin is arguing about different things.

Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.

MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.

Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.

Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
* God's absolute truth cannot be relative
* if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless

MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.

GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.

if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.

But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!

If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?

We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.

Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.

How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?

I told you a long time ago, Emily.

I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.

I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.

I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.

So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.

I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.

These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.

Dear me!

GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
if the sentiment is mutual.

I just know that where I treat people with respect,
they do the same, or try to.

how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
if we treat each other as trash?

It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
the only things we can change are the relations in our range.

If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?

Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.

You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.

here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
Rachel s Challenge
If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!

I think, from what I remember reading, he was just saying "he/we don't have time for all that shit". We come here to vent a little. If you want to effectively communicate, stop whatever yoga mentality bullshit you are trying to put on us. No one is buying in yet I see you reaching out to everyone the same way. It's not effective. Try something new. Or put it in plain terms. If we are bitching about abortion, we already know the other sides position on it. We disagree. And it is the other side that doesn't want to focus on the real problems, which is how can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Why don't they want to talk about the solutions? Because they involve rubbers and birth control and sex ed in school. Even covering contraception as part of your healthcare coverage. They don't understand that it's important. Why? Because their god tells them his way or the highway.

 

[G.T.]

But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!

If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?

We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.

Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.

How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?

I told you a long time ago, Emily.

I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.

I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.

I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.

So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.

I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.

These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.

Dear me!

GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
if the sentiment is mutual.

I just know that where I treat people with respect,
they do the same, or try to.

how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
if we treat each other as trash?

It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
the only things we can change are the relations in our range.

If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?

Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.

You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.

here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
Rachel s Challenge
If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!

Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?

Think.


Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.

If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.

You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.

I'm saying we can reach agreement
if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.

So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
we can do more to resolve them.

So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
if people don't forgive, they get stuck
if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
does the more we forgive the conflicts.

Fair enough.

If you eventually get past the fact that I won't respect these guys and want to have a conversation independent of them, let me know and I'll be game for it. I'm not going to be on the same page with bothering with them as you are, sorry about that.