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

[Tom Sweetnam]

Dogs chasing their tales.

A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.

Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.

 

[Justin Davis]

Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.

Attacking the man?

 

[Justin Davis]

Boss is Refuted!

I'm going to concentrate on this self-aggrandizing portion of your post.

I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true. I have not personally attacked you. I refuted your notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition and that the objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin necessarily anthropomorphize God, when if fact the only coherently defensible conclusion is that God theologized us, that the logic we have is His logic, not created, but bestowed on us.

You have not responded by directly addressing the problems with your notion exposed by my observations. You have responded with straw men and with the increasingly obtuse/evasive belligerence and derision of piggish pride.

Enough of your mealy mouthed blather. You have been refuted! Your closed-minded, dogmatic fanaticism that would arbitrarily preclude the only rational conclusion has been refuted.

Justin is absolutely correct. There is no historically prominent system of theistic thought that agrees with your retarded blather. None of the theistic systems of thought of a total or of a partial transcendence for divnity (immanentheism, deism, panentheism), whether they be monotheistic or polytheistic, holds that divinity created logic. No form of pantheism holds that God created logic. No learned Jew, Christian or Muslim holds that God created logic. Neither the Torah, the Bible nor the Koran holds that God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosophy or theology that holds God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosopher or theologian who holds that God created logic. Even the inarguably pagan polytheism of Buddhism and Hinduism do not hold that divinity created logic. Not even the esoteric mysticism of the Gnostics holds that God created logic. Rather, all of these systems of theistic thought hold that divinity's logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!

Why?

Because the notion that logic was created by divinity rather than bestowed on the creation contradicts the universally absolute principle of identity bioneurologically hardwired in humans! It is not rationally, let alone empirically, possible to demonstrate that logic was created by divinity. Your notion is retarded blather that does not hold up logically; it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the very opposite to be true. You are a retard blathering nonsense.

You are counted among the retarded theists of history, not the rational theists of history.

You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity; you're not going to sell your retarded blather around here that the overwhelming and only rational opinion of history is barking madness while your idiocy is peaches and cream. Your retarded blather is not peaches and cream. It's barking madness.

According to the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, logic could not have been created by God! God is the very substance and the ground of Logic! He bestowed His logic on the creation! The organic laws of thought, the logic of natural and moral law, the logic of the physical laws of nature are God's logic bestowed on the creation, not created. Or according to the various forms of pantheism, God bestowed His logic on the universe in its creation and then infused Himself with the universe.



You were refuted here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153885/


And here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10141668/


And here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/


And here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149386/


And here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139234/




The ramifications of Gödel's theorems and proof refute you:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138400/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138418/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10144163/




The ramifications of the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy refute you:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134155/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134182/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153980/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153941/




The ramifications of the incontrovertible proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, the foundation of absolute objectivity in logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science refute you:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138804/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/




You refute yourself every time you contradictorily concede that The Seven Things (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/) hold, for their logical ramifications necessarily hold that logic was bestowed on creation, not created.

You are refuted again in this post.

You will be refuted again in my summary.

Only fools would grant your retarded blather any credibility; indeed, you cite the very same fools who necessarily argued against your retarded blather earlier on this thread, persons, like you, who do not grasp the ramifications of their earlier refutations of your retarded blather. They are idiots. The only reason they grant your crap any credence is because you are now arguing against me, their nemesis.

You and your butt buddies are refuted!

Your retarded blather is refuted!

You are refuted!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dogs chasing their tales.

A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.

Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.

Justin's observations from last night are correct. He is not a lap dog. In fact, it is he who caused me to realize that the best way to show that the principle of identity universally holds is to show that it universally holds among the various, historically prominent religious systems of thought in the world, despite the many yawning differences between them in subsequent detail. There remains this one universal: logic was not created by God, but bestowed by God.

Why does this hold?

Consider the religious systems of thought that hold the opposite to be true, as there have been some in history.

They never get anywhere, really, never garner anything but relatively small, principled or regional followings, typically cultish in nature, headed by megalomaniacs who mind-trip folks into believing that the commonsensical principle of identity that we all either consciously or instinctively understand to hold is an illusion, headed by persons who direct their followers attention away from this universal and direct their devotion on them, rather than on the greater universal truths. The few, larger cultish followings endure longer. Their leaders understand that religious systems of thought that deny the reality of this universal don't gain any real traction, so they don't refute the principle of identity; instead, they assert it and attach themselves to it in some direct sense, as being either the essence of it or the only prophet of it with special, esoteric knowledge that invariably violates the principle of identity anyway, just in a less obvious fashion. Most such cultish religions are extinct . . . though there's always a new one popping up for it's fifteen minutes of fame.

The only rational conclusion is that divinity theologized us, conferred its logic on the creation, that is to say, if the logic of human cognition is correct and God does in fact exist.

Justin is an absolutist who holds to the only objective standard/perspective for logic regardless of what any given person might decide for themselves to be ultimately true about these matters. These things are not hidden from anyone. The objective facts of human cognition are manifest to all; the rational alternatives/options for belief thereof are manifest to all. Judeo-Christianity is an absolute system of thought. There are dozens of Christians on this forum who have and/or would agree with these things. It is only surprising to life-long idealists or relativists or materialists that the views of absolutists would mostly line up with one another.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.

Attacking the man?

I guess Tom is just another lapdog looking to bark, I mean, mark his territory.
There seems to be a lot of pecking order politics,
trying to establish who is the Alpha male on which level?

We think we are above animals, but this seems to bring out the beast in people!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dogs chasing their tales.

A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.

Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.

Justin's observations from last night are correct. He is not a lap dog. In fact, it is he who caused me to realize that the best way to show that the principle of identity universally holds is to show that it universally holds among the various, historically prominent religious systems of thought in the world, despite the many yawning differences between them in subsequent detail. There remains this one universal: logic was not created by God, but bestowed by God.

Why does this hold?

Consider the religious systems of thought that hold the opposite to be true, as there have been some in history.

They never get anywhere, really, never garner anything but relatively small, principled or regional followings, typically cultish in nature, headed by megalomaniacs who mind-trip folks into believing that the commonsensical principle of identity that we all either consciously or instinctively understand to hold is an illusion, headed by persons who direct their followers attention away from this universal and direct their devotion on them, rather than on the greater universal truths. The few, larger cultish followings endure longer. Their leaders understand that religious systems of thought that deny the reality of this universal don't gain any real traction, so they don't refute the principle of identity; instead, they assert it and attach themselves to it in some direct sense, as being either the essence of it or the only prophet of it with special, esoteric knowledge that invariably violates the principle of identity anyway, just in a less obvious fashion. Most such cultish religions are extinct . . . though there's always a new one popping up for it's fifteen minutes of fame.

The only rational conclusion is that divinity theologized us, conferred its logic on the creation, that is to say, if the logic of human cognition is correct and God does in fact exist.

Justin is an absolutist who holds to the only objective standard/perspective for logic regardless of what any given person might decide for themselves to be ultimately true about these matters. These things are not hidden from anyone. The objective facts of human cognition are manifest to all; the rational alternatives/options for belief thereof are manifest to all. Judeo-Christianity is an absolute system of thought. There are dozens of Christians on this forum who have and/or would agree with these things. It is only surprising to life-long idealists or relativists or materialists that the views of absolutists would mostly line up with one another.

Dear M.D. and Justin:
Can I please ask for a live demonstration/explanation
of this difference in logic?

Please see previous msg on how Forgiveness
challenges human logic.

If you can show how this demonstrates your points,
there is no need to put anyone down.

Please do not skirt this Forgiveness issue.
Or it will look obvious that the reason you do
is that you know you are falling short of
what Christianity calls us to do to
follow God's laws and not man's logic
which tells us to backbite in retribution.

If you stoop to that level, but then try to preach
to Boss how Christians can know and call upon
the logic of God, then this seems conflicting!

if we are going to demonstrate the difference it makes
when we let God's logic guide us, then it makes
sense to apply that to our own discourse here.

I hope you and Justin can see what I mean,
because that can end the petty pickering that is man's ways
and start invoking the higher truth that is God's which is humbling
and does not insult provoke or attack anyone. I'd much prefer
to invoke God's truth and logic, especially if that is what
we are trying to demonstrate here as fellow believers
that our will can be made one with God's through Christ or perfect conscience.

Can we please get and stay on the same page with this
and quit reverting to man's logic which is to trample and
backbite against those who offend oppose or insult what we are trying to do.

Justin can you help?
Inevitable?

We need to stay in line and on track
and not fall into the petty ditches on the side.

 

[amrchaos]

Emily

Once we begin to talk about things beyond our ability to conceive, we begin to play around with unsupported conjectures.

"I do not know" is the best answer I can give. I need a lot more information before I can attempt to take a position.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss is Refuted!

Dear M.D. Rawlings
I'm glad we are moving toward getting the uncivil reactions out of the way
and focusing on interesting points where we can remain civil and focus intelligently.

Can you please reply to the post on Forgiveness
as an example of where God's logic trumps man's logic?

I think that will spell out where these diverge
and where we rely on connection in Christ or Conscience
to rise above man's retributive nature and seek
higher peace through restorative justice and love of truth.

Thanks!
maybe if we give a concrete example
we can talk these things out instead of going in circles with the terms

Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at. We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews. We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case. Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence: Judeo-Christianity or Islam. These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.

Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation. This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who are willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who are willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things. But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.

Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is nature, not God.

The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought are invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss is Refuted!

Dear M.D. Rawlings
I'm glad we are moving toward getting the uncivil reactions out of the way
and focusing on interesting points where we can remain civil and focus intelligently.

Can you please reply to the post on Forgiveness
as an example of where God's logic trumps man's logic?

I think that will spell out where these diverge
and where we rely on connection in Christ or Conscience
to rise above man's retributive nature and seek
higher peace through restorative justice and love of truth.

Thanks!
maybe if we give a concrete example
we can talk these things out instead of going in circles with the terms

Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at. We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews. We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case. Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence: Judeo-Christianity or Islam. These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.

Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation. This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things. But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.

Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is nature, not God.

The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought are invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.

Hi M.D. Rawlings and thanks
1. Re: "This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law"

And I would apply this back to nontheists, where neither do nontheists need to abandon their nontheist views
in order to reconcile with the universal principles underneath that do not rely on attaching oneself to either theism or nontheism.

2. Please note the above ^ about not necessarily abandoning our views as long as we are straight on the fundamentals
is what I mean by having both the absolutes AND allowing for relatives at the same time. these do not necessarily conflict, I agree. I agree you cannot compromise the common truths trying to accommodate the relatives; the point is if the absolutes are truly universal they should either include or resolve any other relative views represented. There should not be any conflict.

3. the one thing I see missing here
is you are still going one-sided with your views
OVER the views of others who do relate to using the state and govt law to establish the common good will.

There is nothing wrong with using govt to complement, as long as it doesn't corrupt, abuse, impose in contradictory ways.

So this is where FORGIVENESS of the different ways comes in.
otherwise the bias creeps in of taking or favoring one side and criticizing or opposing the other as wrong or inferior.

The unbiased way would show how all views contribute and check and balance each other.
And there are EQUAL flaws when the side you take goes overboard and oppresses the other!

So if you do not show both sides, people can get distracted and jump on that.
Even Sealybobo jumps on me because he feels I keep settling for the other side as the default, and he does not see that I equally check that side the same way i check the nontheists/secular side when they reject too much.

This is why we need to help each other, M.D.

You are going to keep pushing from your perspective.
Sealybobo from his. Hollie from hers.
So we can check and correct each other.

So this is why forgiveness and trust in the process
is going to determine how we go about resolving all our points and issues
we are trying to represent and add to the bigger picture.

We can't hear the music if the orchestra members are all competing to drown each other out.
We are supposed to be taking each part and maximizing its strength, balancing it with the others,
so the whole symphony works out perfectly as written.

We can hash out issues, but for the purpose of resolving them and keeping everyone in the orchestra
not kicking anyone out or silencing the part they play.

God makes each part, each instrument and person and purpose for a reason.

[One final note: although your chart shows where the majority of people are, the majority of people are in conflict and suffer war and division. The Bible tells us the gate of destruction is very broad and most people go that way. While the gate of righteousness is narrow and very few shall find it.

How I interpret the narrow gate is to stick to points where we agree, which are key critical points, and the rest will follow. The broader path of "I am right you are wrong" "my group has the answer, the other group is causing the problems" is what sends most of the world to war.

The rare path of finding where we correct each other as equals, where we have equal good strongpoints and equal weak points someone else helps us clarify -- that is where we can save relations where we agree in Christ Jesus or by conscience, on the truth that sets us free from strife which is the majority of human experience. the peace is more rare, and that saves us.]

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dear M.D. and Justin:
Can I please ask for a live demonstration/explanation
of this difference in logic?

Please see previous msg on how Forgiveness
challenges human logic.

If you can show how this demonstrates your points,
there is no need to put anyone down.

Please do not skirt this Forgiveness issue.
Or it will look obvious that the reason you do
is that you know you are falling short of
what Christianity calls us to do to
follow God's laws and not man's logic
which tells us to backbite in retribution.

If you stoop to that level, but then try to preach
to Boss how Christians can know and call upon
the logic of God, then this seems conflicting!

if we are going to demonstrate the difference it makes
when we let God's logic guide us, then it makes
sense to apply that to our own discourse here.

I hope you and Justin can see what I mean,
because that can end the petty pickering that is man's ways
and start invoking the higher truth that is God's which is humbling
and does not insult provoke or attack anyone. I'd much prefer
to invoke God's truth and logic, especially if that is what
we are trying to demonstrate here as fellow believers
that our will can be made one with God's through Christ or perfect conscience.

Can we please get and stay on the same page with this
and quit reverting to man's logic which is to trample and
backbite against those who offend oppose or insult what we are trying to do.

Justin can you help?
Inevitable?

We need to stay in line and on track
and not fall into the petty ditches on the side.

The Irrationalists Mock Themselves

Emily, if I have to break through nonsense that pretends not to understand, for example, that our logic could not have been endowed on us by God, as if that were not the only rational alternative that cannot be arbitrarily precluded in any event, I will. If I have to break through the nonsense that does not comprehend that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness would necessarily anthropomorphize God if logic were created, rather than endowed, I will. I'm not going to tolerate the intolerable argumentation of attacking the man, the herd-mentality ploys of silencing the man or the smart aleck ploys of discrediting the man, all of which evade the argument of the man and evince the intolerance of closed-minded, fanatical dogmatism. All of these tactics have been launched against the absolute standard of objectivity by persons who have claimed that no such thing exists.

That's weird!

Are they or are they not making an absolute claim when they assert that?

Answer: Yes, they are! And in so doing they necessarily concede that the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity, universally hold, at least insofar as human cognition goes.

There are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes?!

Whaaaaaa?

If there are no absolutes, then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory, self-negating, positively proves the opposite to be true, logically!

Hence, whether or not the principle of identity holds, objectively speaking universally or transcendentally beyond the confines of our minds, those who assert that it does not sure as hell can't prove that, rationally or empirically. Yet we have charlatans on this thread implying that they have proven that very thing when as I have just shown that is not possible.

I have simply persevered and pushed back, hard, when necessary. I'm not going to allow the irrationalists to sell their garbage as if it were the sensible position, as if it were backed by something, rather than nothing at all but the maybes or what ifs of human imagination. The what is of human cognition has the hands down better argument and plenty of evidence to back it.

When I see the likes of Amrchaos imply that that they have proven that the laws of human thought are not absolute, not with an argument, for obviously no such argument can be made except as an indemonstrable hypothesis, but with derision or mockery, I will show how they in fact mock themselves.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.

To me little conflicts are like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.

I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.

I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
but after that emotional steam blows off,
M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.

So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.

Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.

And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!

I repeat certain posts to set up points to come or to refute repetitious objections that have already been falsifed, which GT is especially fond of OCDing as if he had not been already rounding refuted.

 

[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.

This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.

Dear amrchaos:
1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.

Sorry Emily

I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.

I like to keep it on. "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.

 

[emilynghiem]

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.

To me little conflicts are like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.

I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.

I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
but after that emotional steam blows off,
M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.

So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.

Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.

And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!

I repeat certain posts to set up points to come or to refute repetitious objections that have already been falsifed, which GT is especially fond of OCDing as if he had not been already rounding refuted.

Dear M.D.
That is good to resolve issues on all levels and all fronts.

For the UNDERSTANDING of how God's logic works
and how Forgiveness transcends man's logic,
this is best shared and understood by example.

MD we can argue day and night that forgiveness heals
and helps resolve conflicts.

But until people personally experience it and practice it,
it doesn't have the same meaning as on the page.

We need to do more than just use the words and logic on the page.

To fully absorb and embrace the meaning
means to experience this process in our relations and in our lives.

so applying it to the very relations and conflicts we have here,
that demonstrates the power of forgiveness on healing and resolving conflicts.

the compelling influence of that truth on that higher level
trumps these other loops and pitfalls people are falling into.

it is like pushing on the gas to straighten out the wheels.
You can argue all the angles and mathematical logistics you want, and be 100% correct,
or you can just physically straighten out the wheels and demonstrate directly by action.

A lot of the people here respond to more direct demonstration.
When can we get to that part?

 

[G.T.]

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.

This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.

Dear amrchaos:
1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.

Sorry Emily

I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.

I like to keep it on. "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.

All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.

And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.

 

[G.T.]

Logic being descriptive doesnt make human minds come first before nature.

It makes the exact opposite true.

Of course, you'd have to be somewhat intelligent to understand that.

Let's explain?

Logic is a human made construct to describe reality.

Laws of logic are concepts which describe actual things. The properties of these actual things and how they behave exist, the concepts which are used to describe them are merely concepts.

an apple is incapable of being a banana at the same time and in the same way

the properties of the apple and how they behave make this true, the concept of logic doesnt make this true, it simply describes it.

It's not that hard.

Well, maybe it is.

Presuppers in 3d.

Dip, duck and dodge.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear amrchaos:
1. RE: Post by M.D. where there is agreement on science applied to spiritual healing:
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.

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why not focus on science and spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.

Sorry Emily

I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.

I like to keep it on. "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.

OK is that better I removed the reference links to ignored msgs
and just cited the paragraph that shows where MD and I agree on science applied to spiritual healing.
I just agreed with his msg, and let him word it as is. ^

Can we focus on those 3 points ^

Do you see these as offering productive POTENTIAL
even if you don't know, do these seem like a better focus to you to stick to areas of
common interest and agreement, such as actually applying science to demonstrate something of significance, and to focus on a REAL example of what is MEANT by the difference between "God's logic/laws of justice" and "man's logic/justice" by examining the impact and issue of FORGIVENESS.

 

[Justin Davis]

Dogs chasing their tales.

A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.

Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.

Justin's observations from last night are correct. He is not a lap dog. In fact, it is he who caused me to realize that the best way to show that the principle of identity universally holds is to show that it universally holds among the various, historically prominent religious systems of thought in the world, despite the many yawning differences between them in subsequent detail. There remains this one universal: logic was not created by God, but bestowed by God.

Why does this hold?

Consider the religious systems of thought that hold the opposite to be true, as there have been some in history.

They never get anywhere, really, never garner anything but relatively small, principled or regional followings, typically cultish in nature, headed by megalomaniacs who mind-trip folks into believing that the commonsensical principle of identity that we all either consciously or instinctively understand to hold is an illusion, headed by persons who direct their followers attention away from this universal and direct their devotion on them, rather than on the greater universal truths. The few, larger cultish followings endure longer. Their leaders understand that religious systems of thought that deny the reality of this universal don't gain any real traction, so they don't refute the principle of identity; instead, they assert it and attach themselves to it in some direct sense, as being either the essence of it or the only prophet of it with special, esoteric knowledge that invariably violates the principle of identity anyway, just in a less obvious fashion. Most such cultish religions are extinct . . . though there's always a new one popping up for it's fifteen minutes of fame.

The only rational conclusion is that divinity theologized us, conferred its logic on the creation, that is to say, if the logic of human cognition is correct and God does in fact exist.

Justin is an absolutist who holds to the only objective standard/perspective for logic regardless of what any given person might decide for themselves to be ultimately true about these matters. These things are not hidden from anyone. The objective facts of human cognition are manifest to all; the rational alternatives/options for belief thereof are manifest to all. Judeo-Christianity is an absolute system of thought. There are dozens of Christians on this forum who have and/or would agree with these things. It is only surprising to life-long idealists or relativists or materialists that the views of absolutists would mostly line up with one another.

Dear M.D. and Justin:
Can I please ask for a live demonstration/explanation
of this difference in logic?

Please see previous msg on how Forgiveness
challenges human logic.

If you can show how this demonstrates your points,
there is no need to put anyone down.

Please do not skirt this Forgiveness issue.
Or it will look obvious that the reason you do
is that you know you are falling short of
what Christianity calls us to do to
follow God's laws and not man's logic
which tells us to backbite in retribution.

If you stoop to that level, but then try to preach
to Boss how Christians can know and call upon
the logic of God, then this seems conflicting!

if we are going to demonstrate the difference it makes
when we let God's logic guide us, then it makes
sense to apply that to our own discourse here.

I hope you and Justin can see what I mean,
because that can end the petty pickering that is man's ways
and start invoking the higher truth that is God's which is humbling
and does not insult provoke or attack anyone. I'd much prefer
to invoke God's truth and logic, especially if that is what
we are trying to demonstrate here as fellow believers
that our will can be made one with God's through Christ or perfect conscience.

Can we please get and stay on the same page with this
and quit reverting to man's logic which is to trample and
backbite against those who offend oppose or insult what we are trying to do.

Justin can you help?
Inevitable?

We need to stay in line and on track
and not fall into the petty ditches on the side.

There's always forgiveness. Most of the things I say are just the only thing left to do but laugh kind of things. I run a plumbing business from my home office. Right now I've got a project going that doesn't require me to be on site but that all changes next week. I won't even be on the forum after that for a long time but maybe just a little bit so lots of people will be glad of that.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.

Dear amrchaos:
1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.

Sorry Emily

I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.

I like to keep it on. "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.

All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.

And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.

roflol

Like I said
"Ignore on" gives this thread a sane feel.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dogs chasing their tales.

A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.

Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.

Justin's observations from last night are correct. He is not a lap dog. In fact, it is he who caused me to realize that the best way to show that the principle of identity universally holds is to show that it universally holds among the various, historically prominent religious systems of thought in the world, despite the many yawning differences between them in subsequent detail. There remains this one universal: logic was not created by God, but bestowed by God.

Why does this hold?

Consider the religious systems of thought that hold the opposite to be true, as there have been some in history.

They never get anywhere, really, never garner anything but relatively small, principled or regional followings, typically cultish in nature, headed by megalomaniacs who mind-trip folks into believing that the commonsensical principle of identity that we all either consciously or instinctively understand to hold is an illusion, headed by persons who direct their followers attention away from this universal and direct their devotion on them, rather than on the greater universal truths. The few, larger cultish followings endure longer. Their leaders understand that religious systems of thought that deny the reality of this universal don't gain any real traction, so they don't refute the principle of identity; instead, they assert it and attach themselves to it in some direct sense, as being either the essence of it or the only prophet of it with special, esoteric knowledge that invariably violates the principle of identity anyway, just in a less obvious fashion. Most such cultish religions are extinct . . . though there's always a new one popping up for it's fifteen minutes of fame.

The only rational conclusion is that divinity theologized us, conferred its logic on the creation, that is to say, if the logic of human cognition is correct and God does in fact exist.

Justin is an absolutist who holds to the only objective standard/perspective for logic regardless of what any given person might decide for themselves to be ultimately true about these matters. These things are not hidden from anyone. The objective facts of human cognition are manifest to all; the rational alternatives/options for belief thereof are manifest to all. Judeo-Christianity is an absolute system of thought. There are dozens of Christians on this forum who have and/or would agree with these things. It is only surprising to life-long idealists or relativists or materialists that the views of absolutists would mostly line up with one another.

Dear M.D. and Justin:
Can I please ask for a live demonstration/explanation
of this difference in logic?

Please see previous msg on how Forgiveness
challenges human logic.

If you can show how this demonstrates your points,
there is no need to put anyone down.

Please do not skirt this Forgiveness issue.
Or it will look obvious that the reason you do
is that you know you are falling short of
what Christianity calls us to do to
follow God's laws and not man's logic
which tells us to backbite in retribution.

If you stoop to that level, but then try to preach
to Boss how Christians can know and call upon
the logic of God, then this seems conflicting!

if we are going to demonstrate the difference it makes
when we let God's logic guide us, then it makes
sense to apply that to our own discourse here.

I hope you and Justin can see what I mean,
because that can end the petty pickering that is man's ways
and start invoking the higher truth that is God's which is humbling
and does not insult provoke or attack anyone. I'd much prefer
to invoke God's truth and logic, especially if that is what
we are trying to demonstrate here as fellow believers
that our will can be made one with God's through Christ or perfect conscience.

Can we please get and stay on the same page with this
and quit reverting to man's logic which is to trample and
backbite against those who offend oppose or insult what we are trying to do.

Justin can you help?
Inevitable?

We need to stay in line and on track
and not fall into the petty ditches on the side.

There's always forgiveness. Most of the things I say are just the only thing left to do but laugh kind of things. I run a plumbing business from my home office. Right now I've got a project going that doesn't require me to be on site but that all changes next week. I won't even be on the forum after that for a long time but maybe just a little bit so lots of people will be glad of that.

Well maybe we'll make some progress between M.D. and Boss not jumping on each other personally
and sticking more to the points without cracks on the side about people that are distracting and insulting.

The process is bigger than this forum, so whatever each of us is working on outside
is also going to be influenced.

The more we forgive the negatives
the more we receive the positives.
The process corrects itself, even by trial and error,
seeking peace and satisfaction and wanting to avoid pain and suffering of repeat mistakes.

We'll eventually get there, with the commitment and convictions this group has as a whole.
Maybe we will start acting like a team and not fighting against other but
fighting for the same goals of truth and correction where inconsistencies are rooted out,
or the systems are separated so they don't conflict with each other unnecessarily.

Right now,people think the best way to remove the conflict is to kick the other person off the field or team.
The idea of actually resolve the conflicts on both sides takes mutual effort,
so we'll see who is willing to work with whom on which points.

Thanks for taking the time to share and clarify some points of either objections or corrections.
Every little bit helps.

Best wishes with your other projects and come back when God's timing
weaves our paths in the same direction again. the script works out,
not all the players are in the same scene at the same time.
We have to focus one on one, so sometimes we need to be elsewhere.
Life works itself out that way.

Thanks, Justin and may all good things continue to grow and multiply
in abundance around you, in all your relations, and circles of influence.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.

Dear amrchaos:
1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.

Sorry Emily

I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.

I like to keep it on. "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.

All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.

And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.

roflol

Like I said
"Ignore on" gives this thread a sane feel.

Well, amrchaos and G.T., just don't "miss out" on the first post I AGREED with M.D. on
about science and spiritual healing!

Talk about sanity. That spiritual healing HAS cured
mental and criminal illness, from schizophrenia to multiple personalities
to sexual addictions and abuses.

Ignoring the insanity does not solve it.

I'm looking to resolve the cause of conflicts at the root
like "debugging" the system so everything works sanely again.