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

[amrchaos]

Hey Boss

Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs

How about allowing that someone else's statement is Hypothetically true for the sake of argument.

In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.

At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.

I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented. I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.


What do you think?

 

[Boss]

Hey Boss

Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs

How about allowing that someone else's statement is Hypothetically true for the sake of argument.

In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.

At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.

I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented. I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.

What do you think?

Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Boss

Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs

How about allowing that someone else's statement is Hypothetically true for the sake of argument.

In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.

At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.

I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented. I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.

What do you think?

Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.

I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.

The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force. Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best. It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter. Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.

I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine. Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them. No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.

 

[emilynghiem]

God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!

Someone had to create divine forgiveness
or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)

And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
And MD and Justin for either being the same person
or being two different people, whichever is worse!

love of creation, love of truth and justice
has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.

Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.

So who made my shit stink?

Whatever you ate made it come out that way.

But god created the smell. Just like he created everything else in the universe.

According to Boss, you don't know that.
You just believe you are smelling your own poop!

 

[emilynghiem]

Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?

Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.

There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.

Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality.

Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.

It's fine to invent your "5%" slogan and claim it's true but that only serves to promote your slogan, not truth.

You apparently are so convinced your invented slogans are true, you ignore the obvious demographics. I suppose you're hoping to suggest that the islamist Middle East is overwhelming islamist because people there have an "intrinsic" affiliation with Islam? Similarly, we can attribute Hinduism in India with an "intrinsic" affiliation with those gawds?

Nonsense. Overwhelmingly, people's religion is nothing more than accepting the religion of their cultural, familial surroundings.

People's religion is the result of their intrinsic spiritual awareness. It doesn't make their religion true, it makes their spiritual awareness true. This cannot be denied, the evidence is overwhelming.

Did you know, in Sweden, the most "atheist" country in the world, 33% report to be atheists... only 15% say they absolutely don't believe in the possibility of anything greater than self. You'd think with "atheists" that number would be significantly higher. But nope.

People's religion is the result of their indoctrination with cultural and familial influences.

There is no such thing as "spiritual awareness". Your invented term is meaningless.

Dud you know that per government sources, 100% of the population in the KSA is Moslem? Remarkable, don't you think. I suppose that the Allah gawd has the service area franchise for that geographic area because 100% of the population has an intrinsic spirit realm connection to Muhammad.

Yes and no Hollie.
The same way Homosexuality is spiritually part of someone's being and path in life,
so is their religious or political affiliation which is the people they associate with and work with
on either problems or solutions.

It is not always "external" or environmental choice. It depends on the PERSON how much
is external environment and how much is internal with how they are as a person.
As with homosexuality, or if someone is born with musical gifts or athletic talents,
sometimes there is a spiritual/personality factor that makes someone lean in certain directions.

Hollie I don't know how many people you know or work with close enough,
but I have friends in the Peace and Justice community who are prolife Catholic,
two who are Atheist who are well respected and award honored leaders of the community,
Muslim who has also won awards for his civil rights and peace and justice outreach in the broader community,
a lot of secular humanists who use the Peace and Justice outreach as their main way of congregating and
actively sharing charity and advocating for sustainable society, and other Christians, Constitutionalists even
Anarchists and some socialists/marxists/communists.

This is not just who they happened to hang out with that they picked this up.
They all had certain callings or purpose they wanted to follow, and then found
the affiliation and the PEOPLE in groups they related to on common goals and how to express their
religious or political beliefs, and so they work with THOSE people.

So yes, some of it IS like what language or culture you are brought up around in life.
Like the influences Obama had with his mother and father.

But some of it is someone's personal calling internally.

These different religions are like Languages for the laws,
and some people feel more comfortable expressing their experiences
through Natural laws, science or "secular" terms (Gentiles)
while other relate to one or more of the churched tribes or sacred laws (Jewish Christian or Muslim).

And politically people align with either Constitutionalist, left, right, extreme feminist,
radical jihadist, etc. Some of that is social influence, and some of it is internalized.

Hollie, it is not the same for all people.

Even with homosexuality, some people will say for them it was a choice
and they were able to change it; and some people will say they were always
that way and it is part of their identity and not a social choice on the outside.

We make mistakes by trying to say it is the same for all people.

 

[sealybobo]

Emily

Kindness can only reach people that are receptive to it.

Tolerance is for those who might mean no harm.

It is a brave thing to offer either to people you do not know. But make no mistake in assuming everyone will reciprocate your kindness or mean no harm.

There is a point when you must stop. If, at least, for the sake of your sanity.

There are people with dark personalities. They will not reciprocate your kindness, and they will take advantage of your tolerance.

Please keep what I said in mind as this thread continues.

And there are people with false, hypocritical personalities who manipulate the truth, who say stupid things and mock the simple truths of common sense.

You sound just like my dad. Highschool educated. I try to explain to him how/why science explains that we made up this god character and all he can say is, "doesn't make sense, something must have..."

You and he are no different. Our primitive ancestors were debating the same shit 200,000 years ago. All your arguments and terms you use come from the ancient Greek philosophers. Although I googled sophers and I think that's Hebrew. Anyways, my point is, we've been arguing this for thousands of years, and no one, not even you my friend, has proven god exists.

But uneducated men like you and my dad say "it doesn't make sense".

That's basically all the proof you have. But it's in your head so it's real, to you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey Boss

Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs

How about allowing that someone else's statement is Hypothetically true for the sake of argument.

In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.

At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.

I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented. I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.

What do you think?

Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.

Then straighten out the problem and show that we are talking about the same things.

MD. makes a distinction between human science and this higher absolute logic that God has inherently
which he says we can access also. That's fine.

You are saying man's logic that is based on the world that God created
was also created with the world, and that is what MD uses "science" to mean, most likely.

So we are just using different terms to distinguish these levels.

Where you and MD don't agree is that you are saying ALL of "God's logic" is outside man's comprehension.
I am saying it is limited, and we can represent parts of God's knowledge.
And MD is absolutely convinced he can know God's absolute truth and express it perfectly as God, whatever.

So I am somewhere in between you and MD.
I say we are not perfectly unbiased and all inclusive so we have relative angles and parts of God's truth.
You seem to be even more on the side of this relativity makes it belief and not knowing, which MD and Justin
cannot stand because it negates ANY of the truth that they DO feel 100% certain to be true, so they don't
want relativity to throw out the absolutes.

I am saying there is both.

YES we can establish some parts of the absolutes,
but we still have to deal with relative expressions because people have different preferences, biases
and cultural/personal ways of seeing/saying things. We are unique personalities and that is part of the communication.

Justin and MD are afraid to acknowledge there is anything valid with the relative approach
because they FEAR it means throwing out the absolutes they want to establish.

I am saying all the relative approaches STILL follow the same universal patterns.
so it is like having independent witnesses to the same absolute common truths motivating all of us, despite
our differences in how we communicate these things.

So I am not afraid but am confident the relatives support the absolutes.
and I think that is where MD and Justin's faith is weak and needs some help.

If there were truly at peace with the absolutes they would include the relatives
and not feel so threatened. They are still afraid of some manipulation.

And that is where the accusations come from, that fear that you or I are going to undermine their arguments
instead of support them.

Fear is lack of faith, so they could still learn from this how to overcome their fears
and strengthen their faith.

Boss you seem to understand the relative part
but don't seem to get how people can tap into the absolutes and logic of God you say is beyond us.

Yes and no. We can't know everything, so yes we are limited.
But when we see patterns that are universally true across the board,
we can know this as in BELIEVE it and it is still faith based in terms of science,
but it is what Justin and MD MEAN by saying they know these things to be absolutes.

MD acknowledged human science is limited, so he does say the same thing you are saying that we cannot fully know.
He uses science to say that part.
He is using the LOGIC to try to show the core patterns or points that are consistent no matter what.
His wording is not perfect because he is losing most of his audience that doesn't follow it,
but the truth behind the pattern is consistent. that pattern is there, and he doesn't get there can
still be Relative expressions of the same pattern. So the logic/pattern is absolute/universal
and he is tripping up over the relative perceptions and terms other people need to process the same pattern.

he doesn't get that part
and you don't get the absolute part.

so you are pretty even.

if you don't let the frustration get to you and don't resort to any such namecalling
they will eventually stop also. both of you seem frustrated that you don't get
each other's angles on the absolute part vs. the relative part.
but that is no reason to insult each other and I hope that stops.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sealybobo:
People may take SIMILAR approaches
but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.

Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.

I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.

so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.

i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.

This comes from projecting past associations.

So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe

And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!

Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.

You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
on your side as anyone else here. So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.

We can't let that skew our judgment
but you can see here, even the best intended people
are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.

at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.

I think that helps.

If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.

It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.

 

[sealybobo]

Dear Sealybobo:
People may take SIMILAR approaches
but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.

Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.

I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.

so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.

i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.

This comes from projecting past associations.

So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe

And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!

Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.

You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
on your side as anyone else here. So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.

We can't let that skew our judgment
but you can see here, even the best intended people
are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.

at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.

I think that helps.

If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.

It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.

Lets be honest here. Who and what is it that us atheists don't like? If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here. You ok with us establishing what the problem is?

Ok lets go. I have a lot of friends who believe in god. In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god. I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe. Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers? Not all of them, but some of them have. So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation. Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously. But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.

You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.

And I use to be just like you guys. I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe. But I did believe. In what exactly I don't know. Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too. Sorry to break it to you.

But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E? It's ISIS. It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us. Teach Creationalism in School. No. Teach that shit in your church. We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed. And I think this frightens organized religions. They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.

Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs? No. Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.

See where I'm going with this? You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing. Sorry babe. I love you but you are wrong. We aren't the problem.

Final thought. If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law. LOL. How would you like that? Me neither. So I don't want NONE OF IT. Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.

 

[Taz]

God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!

Someone had to create divine forgiveness
or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)

And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
And MD and Justin for either being the same person
or being two different people, whichever is worse!

love of creation, love of truth and justice
has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.

Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.

So who made my shit stink?

Whatever you ate made it come out that way.

But god created the smell. Just like he created everything else in the universe.

According to Boss, you don't know that.
You just believe you are smelling your own poop!

Ya, I know, Boss only thinks he's real. But God still made the smell of my shit.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sealybobo:
People may take SIMILAR approaches
but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.

Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.

I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.

so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.

i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.

This comes from projecting past associations.

So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe

And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!

Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.

You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
on your side as anyone else here. So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.

We can't let that skew our judgment
but you can see here, even the best intended people
are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.

at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.

I think that helps.

If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.

It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.

Lets be honest here. Who and what is it that us atheists don't like? If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here. You ok with us establishing what the problem is?

Ok lets go. I have a lot of friends who believe in god. In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god. I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe. Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers? Not all of them, but some of them have. So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation. Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously. But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.

You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.

And I use to be just like you guys. I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe. But I did believe. In what exactly I don't know. Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too. Sorry to break it to you.

But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E? It's ISIS. It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us. Teach Creationalism in School. No. Teach that shit in your church. We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed. And I think this frightens organized religions. They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.

Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs? No. Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.

See where I'm going with this? You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing. Sorry babe. I love you but you are wrong. We aren't the problem.

Final thought. If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law. LOL. How would you like that? Me neither. So I don't want NONE OF IT. Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.

Again you are projecting. I am more a secular Gentile, so this "keeping it in church" doesn't even apply to me.

To me, the church is ALL the people, ALL humanity that is working for peace and justice.

The only thing I "settle" for is being okay with each person's way including yours.

If you tell me you are nontheist and nonChristian, I accept that.

So how can you be UPSET that I accept Christians who talk to God their way
if I also accept you and your ways that are different?

The same acceptance applies to ALL, so it is not fair to say let's include you
and let's exclude this other group.

If someone or some group is being UNFAIR and conflicting with their approach by imposing unfairly on others,
I ask them to stick more consistently with their own principles and that checks the problem.
Only if they are ABUSING their faith does that impose on others, but if each faith is practiced consistently
then people can check themselves.

No need to reject, just ask people to correct what's wrong by using their own principles.

As for God, this means different things to different people
so I work with each person individually.

I do the same for you, without exception, so I see nothing wrong,
unfair, false, inconsistent, hurtful, abusive, or imposing/exclusive about that.

Maybe I am not your usual Universalist.

I find Buddhism, Christianity and Constitutionalism to be Universal.
Where anyone can be of any faith, and still practice and be included in these equally.
You can be Christian and be of any faith and still add Christ to your beliefs and keep them.
(Only if practice dark magic does this clash and you would have to renounce the manipulative part
and just keep the natural law part of the wicca or pagan practices and Christ fulfills the natural laws equally without conflict)
You can be of any faith or no faith and practice the principles in Buddhism.
And Constitutionalism is supposed to include and protect the free exercise of religion, so there should be no clashes there,
unless you practice violates equal rights and freedoms of others and thus becomes abusive, then it is breaking natural laws.

If Islam is practiced to include all laws then it can be Universal, too,
but if any of these is used to REJECT other people or groups it loses Universality and
becomes biased and problematic.

If you want to question any of my personal beliefs that's fine.

But it would be a mistake to lump me in with other Christians
as I challenge them just as much to keep the message universal
and inclusive of Secular Gentiles under natural laws, including atheists and nontheists.

There are just as many aspects of God and Jesus that are perfectly secular concepts
such as Truth and Justice, Wisdom and Charity, that there is no need to make symbolism a condition on belief.

You can remove all the symbolism and describe the
spiritual process of humanity in secular psychological or sociological terms
and it is still the same process that is sybmolized in Christianity and the Bible.

It is still the universal message of Justice that is solely attributed to Jesus as the central symbol for salvation for all humanity.
You dn't hve to personify Justice as Jesus to believe in Equal Justice and Peace for all people.

 

[emilynghiem]

Someone had to create divine forgiveness
or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)

And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
And MD and Justin for either being the same person
or being two different people, whichever is worse!

love of creation, love of truth and justice
has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.

Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.

So who made my shit stink?

Whatever you ate made it come out that way.

But god created the smell. Just like he created everything else in the universe.

According to Boss, you don't know that.
You just believe you are smelling your own poop!

Ya, I know, Boss only thinks he's real. But God still made the smell of my shit.

Sure, TAZ, if that is what you believe.
According to M.D. science can only verify or falsify what you say
but cannot prove it.

Only if you quantify the smell of your poop into Seven Principles
of Universal Logic, then the Logic can prove this by definition,
because you defined your poop to be called poop and
you defined smell to be smell, then of course by definition you set up
then your poop smells. that's just pure logic.

BTW Taz here is the link to how all the world's religions define the same poop:
Religion - The Shit List

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Emily!

I gave you some revised posts to think very carefully about.

You claimed that Godel believed something he never believed or asserted in his life as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You expressed this idea as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You clearly believed this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You got this false idea from GT, apparently, and because it played into your bias, you swallowed it hook, line and sinker without bothering to verify whether or not it is a literal truth, a literal historical fact.

Then you repeated it.

It is ridiculous for you to hold that anyone reading your post could have possibly interpreted your statement in any other way, especially given the fact that you lectured me in another post with this very same notion as if I failed to understand this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact. I wouldn't have even noticed this post until you startled me with a post suggesting that all the things I have argued about the mathematical proofs for God's existence on this thread were unknown to me!

Whaaaaaaa?

Because I do not think as you do, anthropomorphically subjectively, but theologically objectively, I will always see right through the manifest intellectual duplicity of others. I think like God because I believe God’s testimony, not that of any finite creature.

I don't even trust myself.

You suggested that I was an arrogant asshole. Maybe you’re just a gullible, dogmatically fanatical religionist . . . a closed-minded, arrogant asshole.

How about this idea. Maybe you and others can't countenance a person who doesn’t care what you think or what you have to say about him when he tells you the truth about yourself. You can't countenance a person who believes God, instead of you.

Your wont is to worship self, rather than the Creator Who is blessed forever. Your wont is to chase after your personal conceits that do not follow from the logical testimony that God has given you about Himself.

With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).
Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle

Godel's incomplete theorems prove no such truth!

That is a lie.

The author of this piece worships self. His wont is to justify what cannot be rationally justified: the self-serving falsehoods and incoherencies of relativism. Is that your wont? I don't believe him. I don't believe you. I believe God, and let every man who says otherwise be a liar.

On the contrary, Godel's theorems, in truth, what are ultimately the objective facts of human cognition endowed to us by God, prove that mankind can know truths with absolute confidence. We know that the various theorems for the numerical sets of the natural numbers of the number line of infinity, albeit, as supplemented by the theorems that account for the exceptions of general rules, inherently hold true, and we know this to be true with absolute confidence because the laws of organic thought hold this to be true.

The other thing that these objective facts of human cognition (incompleteness theorems) prove to be true is that we cannot comprehend or contain the entirety of truth in our finite minds, not just at the transcendental level of being, which is something we've always known to be true intuitively, but not at the rational level of being, either, in terms of numerical/mathematical logic . . . something we once thought to be possible 'til Gödel came along and proved that to be an illusion.

That is the absolute truth regarding what these theorems prove, and they prove nothing else but these truths. That statement is logically true, necessary and coherent.

They do not prove, as the author absurdly and contradictory claims, indeed, as he necessarily claims, in the very same breath, that nothing can be proven or known to be true, but the truth that no truths can be known. Whaaaaa? Hence, the truth that no truths can be proven or known cannot be proven or known to be true.

That is logically false, impossible, irrational, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite. The theorems do prove things to be true, things that are known to be true. But not only do the theorems prove these things. They prove that human consciousness does not have primacy over existence! Existence is what it is, and it has primacy over human consciousness. More at, these things underscore the absolute, incontrovertible laws of human thought!

Truth is not relative in human logic, but absolute!

Subjective opinions that do not line up with organic logic are necessarily false according to organic logic.

Indeed, the author's guff that all our notions are "based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah)" is more incoherent baby talk.

A priori knowledge consists of the universally absolute axioms and tautologies of organic logic. The scripture of any given religious system of thought is clearly a posteriori in nature, not prior. Hence, the author's statement has no bearing on the issue of what can be known or proven to be true whatsoever. Illusion.

The author is a gullible fool. God is not an idiot or a liar. He is perfect. The logic He endowed on us does not lie. And not only does the author's guff not square with itself due to the inescapable laws of organic logic, it obviously doesn't square with the facts/truths of the ontological and transcendental proofs for God's existence in organic and modal logic.

Hence, this nonsense of yours about people rejecting me is the self-serving crap of gullible fools who cannot justify their idiocy or their lies of relativism no matter how hard they try.

It's not about me and never has been about me. It's about God's truth or, objectively speaking, at the very least, it's about what objective logic proves as opposed to the irrationality of subjective relativism!

This cheap, transparently hypocritical ploy of yours is just you projecting your group-think psychology on me.

It is I and other folks like me who believe God who have been doing the rejecting around here, not you.

I reject your relativistic guff. I reject Hollie the Hate-Filled Luntic's, GT the Missing Links', Jake the Drug Addled Mind's, Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet's, Boss the Obtuse's, sealybobo the Magical's, QW the Sneak's, Brucethenonthinker's, Clayton Jones The Sociopath's . . . guff.

It's the other way around.

I believe the logic. You guys believe in something else that's purely subjective and irrational.

Apparently, you need the herd mentality's stamp of approval. I don't. I put no stock in my opinions or yours or those of anyone else. I put my stock in what God has to say on the matter, what His logic proves about the matter, what you don't have the faith to believe in because you have no faith in anything but the lies you tell yourself and the lies of the herd mentality.

Check?

Dear M.D. Rawlings
Are you replying to old msgs?
Twice already I said to drop that interpretation of Godel since you didn't agree.

What I was TRYING to say is what you mean when you
say humans cannot prove things using science.

So I agree to stick to YOUR way of saying it.
That is what I mean.

What YOU mean by saying science does not prove things
this is close enough to what I mean by human knowledge is finite
and God's knowledge being infinite exceeds human science.

I said that was close enough and agreed to drop any
interpretation of Godel and just stick with your way of saying it
to keep it simple.

Thanks and sorry you missed those two msgs
where I agreed to drop it.

It's my fault that I missed them, not yours. I do have the alert thingy on. I just forgot to use it.

Ultimately, my real concern in all this is that you have a solid scientific foundation for spiritual healing, which I believe in. The evidence for it is overwhelming. In order to have such a foundation you must uphold the correct, formal terms and conventions of logic and science. Then and only then do you have a bullet proof, scientific foundation from which to assert a legitimate and compelling case for spiritual healing in terms of inductive probability based on comparative empirical data. But when you start dragging religious biases into the matter, like the notion that the ultimate cause of spiritual healing could not or is not an operation of divine healing, well, there goes your scientific foundation. Leave religion out of it. Stick with the comparative empirical data. Whatever religious convictions, if any, others bring to its purely scientific, evidentiary probability as they apply the recommended principles is fine, just don't arbitrarily precluded this or that potentiality in the name of science. Otherwise, people are perfectly justified to dismiss spiritual healing as religious mumbo jumbo.

This is what I was getting at here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10077386/

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dear Sealybobo:
People may take SIMILAR approaches
but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.

Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.

I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.

so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.

i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.

This comes from projecting past associations.

So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe

And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!

Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.

You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
on your side as anyone else here. So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.

We can't let that skew our judgment
but you can see here, even the best intended people
are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.

at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.

I think that helps.

If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.

It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.

Lets be honest here. Who and what is it that us atheists don't like? If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here. You ok with us establishing what the problem is?

Ok lets go. I have a lot of friends who believe in god. In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god. I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe. Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers? Not all of them, but some of them have. So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation. Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously. But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.

You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.

And I use to be just like you guys. I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe. But I did believe. In what exactly I don't know. Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too. Sorry to break it to you.

But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E? It's ISIS. It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us. Teach Creationalism in School. No. Teach that shit in your church. We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed. And I think this frightens organized religions. They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.

Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs? No. Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.

See where I'm going with this? You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing. Sorry babe. I love you but you are wrong. We aren't the problem.

Final thought. If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law. LOL. How would you like that? Me neither. So I don't want NONE OF IT. Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.

That's weird. I've never known any churches that work people up to hate atheists.

 

[BreezeWood]

None of you believe something comes from nothing ...

that is relative to the moment of Singularity neither you nor rawlings were willing to ascribe as which state existed before or prior to the event - that would be similar to the confluence between thought and absolute knowledge as the preface for becoming a Spiritual being.

the likelihood whether there was a prior God or not after an original event being irrelevant to the creation of a new one.

.

I don't know what Rawlings told you but I told you the first time that the quantum vacuum caused the singularity. That's all we know scientifically. I don't know quantum physics good enough to say anymore. Ask Rawlings about that. What's this got to do with God? Either the material stuff always existed in some kind of state or God always existed and created it. We only know of two different kinds of things in the ultimate sense. Mind or matter and something had to come first. That's our choice. So who came before that God and before that God and before that God?

.

That's all we know scientifically ... quantum vacuum caused the singularity

is that what you were asked - "but I told you the first time" -


you have the manners of a pig.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.

On the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity

Speaking for myself, that's not what's happening from this end of things at all, Emily.

The veracity of the universal, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are being challenged on the self-negating basis of relativism, and I'm simply showing why relativism fails. The fact of the matter is that relativism affirms that human reasoning is absolute, for we cannot escape that which is universally hardwired bioneurologically. Relativism is necessarily self-negating and positively proves the opposite to be logically true due to the absolute laws of organic thought.

It's this very same operative principle that's in effect when someone attempts to negate the incontrovertible axiom of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. It can't be done linguistically or mathematically. It can't be done in any alternate form of analytic logic, either, without contradiction and chaos.

People are unwittingly claiming that contradiction and chaos carry more weight than rational consistency and order. It's sheer madness.

People are deluding themselves, essentially defrauding themselves into believing something that's irrational as they proclaim truth to be relative when in actuality their premise proves that truth is not relative at all, but absolute according to the laws of organic thought.

People are walking around with a notion that something unreal in logic is real in logic.

Illusion.

That is a serious intellectual and spiritual problem standing in the way of them apprehending the realities of what the laws of thought reveal about the idea of God and standing in the way of a rewarding experience of a genuinely well-grounded faith in the rational and scientific enterprises of human consciousness. Moreover, it's a serious problem standing in the way of people coming to terms with the objective, scientific facts of "spiritual healing" relative to the empirical data of comparative probability.

It's impossible to form a consensus around or to come to a place of neutrality on the basis of any subjective or relativistic systems of belief, for the former are only discernibly legitimate/demonstrable if they consistently hold with the universal, objective facts of human cognition, while the latter defy coherency and order and, in any event, actually prove absolutism, logically.

So cut to the chase!

The foundation of absolute objectivity, the ground zero of neutrality, as it were, the only perspective from which one can back out of one's subjective paradigm in order to apprehend the actualities of the universal facts of human cognition and accurately apprehend the discrete, personal belief systems of others, from premise to conclusion, is the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of the highest conceivable standard for divine attribution and that from nothing, nothing comes.


The transcendent (spiritual/immaterial) alternative for ultimate origin that does not beg the question or arbitrarily preclude any potentially lower standard of divinity is:

The highest conceivable standard for divine attribution + From nothing, nothing comes = God the Creator.

(People are getting hung on the semantics of distinction that make no difference to the fact that what we're thinking/talking about is the eternal, uncaused Cause/Agent of the existence of all other things that exist apart from this transcendent (spiritual/immaterial) alternative for ultimate origin.)


The material alternative for ultimate origin that does not beg the question is:

Mindless inanimateness + From nothing, nothing comes = An eternally existent materiality.

(The notion that something can arise from nothing remains an absurdity in logic and a mere hypothetical potentiality in science. Neither logic nor science proceed from absurdities and/or the mere potentialities of human imagination. Until such time that it can be rationally or empirically demonstrated that something can arise or has arisen from nothing, though how an origin of nothingness could ever be rationally or empirically demonstrated appears to be yet another absurdity, this notion is of the same substance of human imagination as winged "fairies with boots you've got to believe me!", leprechauns, the unicorns of pagan mythology, flying pink elephants. . . .)


Hence, the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the only foundation of absolute objectivity for every problem confronting mankind regarding his existence and his origin, which means that it is the only foundation of absolute objectivity for the various concerns of logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity

Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as properly executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.

The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include all of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.

In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, pretend they don't exist:

1. Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
2. Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
3. God created human beings.
4. Human beings have logic.
5. Hence, God created logic.

That syllogism does not jump from an A to a non sequiturial B, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap: God created everything; hence, God created logic. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?

 

[G.T.]

 

[Justin Davis]

None of you believe something comes from nothing ...

that is relative to the moment of Singularity neither you nor rawlings were willing to ascribe as which state existed before or prior to the event - that would be similar to the confluence between thought and absolute knowledge as the preface for becoming a Spiritual being.

the likelihood whether there was a prior God or not after an original event being irrelevant to the creation of a new one.

.

I don't know what Rawlings told you but I told you the first time that the quantum vacuum caused the singularity. That's all we know scientifically. I don't know quantum physics good enough to say anymore. Ask Rawlings about that. What's this got to do with God? Either the material stuff always existed in some kind of state or God always existed and created it. We only know of two different kinds of things in the ultimate sense. Mind or matter and something had to come first. That's our choice. So who came before that God and before that God and before that God?

.

That's all we know scientifically ... quantum vacuum caused the singularity

is that what you were asked - "but I told you the first time" -


you have the manners of a pig.

.

I don't know why you're getting mad at me now. All I said is that nothing has changed to my knowledge and that's all we know scientifically. I thought maybe you were alluding to something new in science that I haven't heard about. The only thing we know scientifically as far as I've heard is that the singularity came out of the quantum vacuum. The only other thing I can say after that is the ultimate origin of stuff is either mind or matter.

 

[emilynghiem]

so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.

On the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity

Speaking for myself, that's not what's happening from this end of things at all, Emily.

The veracity of the universal, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are being challenged on the self-negating basis of relativism, and I'm simply showing why relativism fails. The fact of the matter is that relativism affirms that human reasoning is absolute, for we cannot escape that which is universally hardwired bioneurologically. Relativism is necessarily self-negating and positively proves the opposite to be logically true due to the absolute laws of organic thought.

It's this very same operative principle that's in effect when someone attempts to negate the incontrovertible axiom of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. It can't be done linguistically or mathematically. It can't be done in any alternate form of analytic logic, either, without contradiction and chaos.

People are unwittingly claiming that contradiction and chaos carry more weight than rational consistency and order. It's sheer madness.

People are deluding themselves, essentially defrauding themselves into believing something that's irrational as they proclaim truth to be relative when in actuality their premise proves that truth is not relative at all, but absolute according to the laws of organic thought.

People are walking around with a notion that something unreal in logic is real in logic.

Illusion.

That is a serious intellectual and spiritual problem standing in the way of them apprehending the realities of what the laws of thought reveal about the idea of God and standing in the way of a rewarding experience of a genuinely well-grounded faith in the rational and scientific enterprises of human consciousness. Moreover, it's a serious problem standing in the way of people coming to terms with the objective, scientific facts of "spiritual healing" relative to the empirical data of comparative probability.

It's impossible to form a consensus around or to come to a place of neutrality on the basis of any subjective or relativistic systems of belief, for the former are only discernibly legitimate/demonstrable if they consistently hold with the universal, objective facts of human cognition, while the latter defy coherency and order and, in any event, actually prove absolutism, logically.

So cut to the chase!

The foundation of absolute objectivity, the ground zero of neutrality, as it were, the only perspective from which one can back out of one's subjective paradigm in order to apprehend the actualities of the universal facts of human cognition and accurately apprehend the discrete, personal belief systems of others, from premise to conclusion, is the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of the highest conceivable standard for divine attribution and that from nothing, nothing comes.


The transcendent (spiritual/immaterial) alternative for ultimate origin that does not beg the question or arbitrarily preclude any potentially lower standard of divinity is:

The highest conceivable standard for divine attribution + From nothing, nothing comes = God the Creator.

(People are getting hung on the semantics of distinction that make no difference to the fact that what we're thinking/talking about is the eternal, uncaused Cause/Agent of the existence of all other things that exist apart from this transcendent (spiritual/immaterial) alternative for ultimate origin.)


The material alternative for ultimate origin that does not beg the question is:

Mindless inanimateness + From nothing, nothing comes = An eternally existent materiality.

(The notion that something can arise from nothing remains an absurdity in logic and a mere hypothetical potentiality in science. Neither logic nor science proceed from absurdities and/or the mere potentialities of human imagination. Until such time that it can be rationally or empirically demonstrated that something can arise or has arisen from nothing, though how an origin of nothingness could ever be rationally or empirically demonstrated appears to be yet another absurdity, this notion is of the same substance of human imagination as winged "fairies with boots you've got to believe me!", leprechauns, the unicorns of pagan mythology, flying pink elephants. . . .)


Hence, the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the only foundation of absolute objectivity for every problem confronting mankind regarding his existence and his origin, which means that it is the only foundation of absolute objectivity for the various concerns of logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science.

Hi MD.
A. I'm glad we agree to focus on the objective approach to understanding and scientifically documenting the spiritual healing process. Since I come from a secular background, I am more used to that approach anyway.
I had to learn the Christian language and symbology similar to a second language,
so I consider my native language to be as a Secular Gentile. My goal is to be equally
trilingual where I can speak as comfortably and clearly with nontheists/Buddhists/secular/naturalists
as I can with Jews/Christians/Muslims and with Constitutionalists on all sides of the spectrum from left to right,
extreme and moderate, even anarchists or socialists and still communicate using common principles of natural laws.

B. As for this relativism
I think you and I are talking about two totally different things.

I think you mean the type of relativistic approach where there is no baseline
but people go all over the place and want freedom to choose all kinds of things
without respect for a common baseline standard.

My standard is consent, so whatever people do, you cannot go around
abusing rights or freedoms to the point you impose on someone else, ideologically or physically etc.

So I believe in resolving conflicts so that no one's beliefs, standards, consent or interests
get excluded, violated or imposed upon.

I find it is a natural law and process that people will express their consent and dissent,
so if we just our our free speech and right to petition to spell out and answer all our grievances
and objections, we could solve problems and come up with some kind of amicable solution as
to what to do or not to do in response to any situation or conflict.

Most of it is addressing the minute there is a conflict, and not waiting for it to escalate or build up
so far out of control that it is emotionally, physically, financially or logically too much to resolve.

Where I differ in terms of relative viewpoints
is that I believe there is both absolute points of truth and agreement
and there are relative ways of expressing, perceiving or arriving at such points.

So I see ways to defend both the absolutes
AND allow for the relatives within that process
and these do not compete or threaten each other.

When I was teaching math, the rules are the same, the symbols are fixed.
There are absolutes that don't change.

But some students would reject one teacher who they just couldn't follow
and want to work with a different teacher who explained or connected with them differently
where they could follow and understand how to process the math. It's the same content,
the same symbols and process, but sometimes the way of explaining or
the personality of the people made a difference.

People are funny that way.
So I've learned to accept it.

Some parables about the Trinity work perfectly for one person
and fall flat with another person. It's the same CONCEPT
but the connection to understand it can vary from person to person.
It's relative depending on their unique spiritual path and process
to still arrive at the same "universal truth through Christ" as Christians call it,
but the Gentiles may go through natural laws and logical thinking to get to the
same or similar stages of realization. they may not go through the Bible or
church teachings to get to the same understanding of God and Jesus.

it can be as different for each person as our souls are unique.

C. I can see why the "relativism" approach causes such problems.
We can go on and on about examples; like right now, people wanting
legalization because it isn't proven to them yet that marijuana causes
longterm brain impairment. So just because it isn't proven fully by their
standards, then it becomes a belief that pot is harmful and by relative
views, other people's beliefs cannot be imposed on their freedom.
But when it comes to paying for the costs of this damage, who is going
to pay the bill? The taxpayers who opposed pot because they don't
want to encourage more such usage and health problems?

That's just one example where proof becomes legally necessary
to stop people from going through loopholes because it isn't established truth yet.

On that note, I am wondering if the argument can be made
to push to fund research on spiritual healing as better for the public interest
than all the money pushed to study pot only.

If you look at the millions invested in pushing medicinal marijuana
compared with spiritual healing that is free, does not have any side effects,
and is more effective in curing a broader range of ills than pot can be used for,
there is no reason not to develop that instead, UNLESS there is some
political agenda biased TOWARD pushing pot specifically and
AGAINST healing methods coming from Christian practitioners.

I think that might expose the entire bias if we were to push
to fund research and development of Spiritual Healing as
superior to pot in most cases, balancing equal funds as is being spent on
researching pot.

Can you imagine the uproar if this were brought out,
and people still wanted to fund pot studies and avoided studies of spiritual healing.
Wouldn't that expose the bias even more.

Anyway I do think we are getting closer to the time that
medical research will be organized around spiritual healing.

People have to be ready for the massive social change this will involve,
so I think most of the prep work was tilling the soil before planting these seeds.

We have to make room for the garden to bloom and grow,
instead of letting everything get overgrown with weeds.

If the timing is right, it will come together and happen.
So I wonder if the push for research into medical marijuana
could open the door to fund R&D on spiritual healing that is purely natural,
free and effective, causes no harm and is not contrary to science or medicine,
and can be shown to help more people with a wider range of conditions,
independent of their faith, it works for secular nontheists equally as for Christians
where the key factor is to forgive issues in the past that otherwise block the natural healing process.
that is universal and not dependent on someone's religion, though forgiveness is the key factor.

I would appreciate your honest opinion, advice
or suggestions on how to go about setting up such R&D.

Even helping Veterans heal from PTSD and implementing
spiritual healing into VA programs could be one angle.
I want to apply it to research on diagnosis, early intervention
and either management or cure of criminal illness, so we can reform
the criminal justice and mental health systems. That would release
a lot of wasted taxpayer funds better invested in more effective sustainable programs
for preventing crime by treating the root causes.

Thanks M.D.!
I can see building a website around this
and promoting outreach to help more people.