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

[BreezeWood]

I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

your selective memory serves you poorly ...


gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?

.

 

[Justin Davis]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere. That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument. Why don't you read the thread. What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about? Most atheists are total idiots. You're a Christian right? You don't even believe what the Bible tells you? Paul's just kidding around? There's nothing to what he's saying? He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe. You don't know what they are? Seriously? Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe. Why? You don't have any reason to believe? Must be based on something. You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where? Can you even define God? What evidence spoke to you? You're the one saying you believe for no reason really. That can't be right. How can that be right? Where did you get the idea God? Do you know that much at least? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I know why I believe. The evidence is obvious. The real question is why do you believe? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. You're not making any sense. Come on, man! What made you believe that? That's all I'm asking you. Is it a secrete? Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to? You know that's not the real question. Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists. The Bible calls them fools. You don't know why they're fools? The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence. Things made you believe. What are they?

 

[Justin Davis]

And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.

Sociopath

How old are, nitwit? 15?

You don't seem to bring much to the table. The OP is on the classical arguments for God existence. That's the issue. You don't seem to have much interest. Why are you here?

Ummm...to irritate irritating people like you? That's a pretty good reason.

Irritate me? I'm the irritant according you. I've never been on a forum like this before. Most people I know don't go around saying they believe things for no reason or believe things that don't even jive with what they're saying is true. I come on to this thread and there's people all over the place doing these things.

"Oh, you know, this is true and you're wrong." No I don't know why that's true. Why do you say that's true? Next thing you know . Why? Why? Why? .

What a bunch of you people. It's .

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

your selective memory serves you poorly ...


gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?

.

Don't give me that selective memory crap. I cut you off in that post. I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into. I wrote a few more posts to you trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity. But, no, all I got from you were more of these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again. I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me. What is it?

I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism. No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this but you, Cornflake. What is it?

BreezeWood: "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"

Rawlings: "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader. What is it?"

 

[Justin Davis]

I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

your selective memory serves you poorly ...


gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?

.

Don't give me that selective memory crap. I cut you off in that post. I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into. I wrote a few more posts to you trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity. But, no, all I got from you were more of these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again. I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me. What is it?

I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism. No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this but you, Cornflake. What is it?

BreezeWood: "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"

Rawlings: "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader. What is it?"

BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind. Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind. armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying.


So why is that true? That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true. . No that doesn't jive either. .

 

[Inevitable]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere. That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument. Why don't you read the thread. What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about? Most atheists are total idiots. You're a Christian right? You don't even believe what the Bible tells you? Paul's just kidding around? There's nothing to what he's saying? He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe. You don't know what they are? Seriously? Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe. Why? You don't have any reason to believe? Must be based on something. You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where? Can you even define God? What evidence spoke to you? You're the one saying you believe for no reason really. That can't be right. How can that be right? Where did you get the idea God? Do you know that much at least? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I know why I believe. The evidence is obvious. The real question is why do you believe? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. You're not making any sense. Come on, man! What made you believe that? That's all I'm asking you. Is it a secrete? Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to? You know that's not the real question. Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists. The Bible calls them fools. You don't know why they're fools? The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence. Things made you believe. What are they?

Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.

 

[emilynghiem]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

 

[Justin Davis]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere. That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument. Why don't you read the thread. What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about? Most atheists are total idiots. You're a Christian right? You don't even believe what the Bible tells you? Paul's just kidding around? There's nothing to what he's saying? He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe. You don't know what they are? Seriously? Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe. Why? You don't have any reason to believe? Must be based on something. You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where? Can you even define God? What evidence spoke to you? You're the one saying you believe for no reason really. That can't be right. How can that be right? Where did you get the idea God? Do you know that much at least? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I know why I believe. The evidence is obvious. The real question is why do you believe? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. You're not making any sense. Come on, man! What made you believe that? That's all I'm asking you. Is it a secrete? Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to? You know that's not the real question. Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists. The Bible calls them fools. You don't know why they're fools? The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence. Things made you believe. What are they?

Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.

It's a secrete.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

How about this:
1. Given God created all things in the universe
2. there was some reason or logic for God to create the universe
3. the reason or logic had to exist BEFORE God created the universe

Since #1 and #3 contradict each other then
A. either the logic or reason was already there,
B. the whole universe was already preexistent also and not created
C. we don't know if it was A or B

I think Boss is saying
C
we don't know, we can only theorize what God's logic or reasons
are and what is the process of God's creation or order of the steps etc.

As for human logic:
A. Given God created all things, including humans, human nature and conscience
B. Human logic is part of the human conscience, and the laws of logic and
science are part of the laws of creation
C. then one could argue that when God created humans and our relationship
to all things in the world, then the logic ON THAT LEVEL was created by God

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.

Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
so whatever logic God created for us on our level
is determining whatever we look at. it is always
limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.

So I see it could be all three ways
1. all things including God and logic could always be in existent
and we don't know the order or process these things became realized or aware to man
2. there was a specific starting point, and some logic could precede
creation, or some logic created after, people may not agree or know which way either
3. there may or may not be any God, no logic beyond man's made up logic projected
on everything else, it could all be a Matrix like construct.

Since we don't know or agree which way it is
I still propose that we stick to points that
DON'T DEPEND on assuming OR rejecting any of these versions
of where God or logic does or does not come into the picture.

Let's just agree to use our present day reasoning and consent by educated free choice
(not coercion or bullying or attack), to decide step by step how to go about
forming a consensus and verifying points of agreement and eliminating areas of conflict.

We can still use our logic to sort through this.

we don' thve to agree where or when it come from what,
to use logic to agree
yes or no
true or false
agree or disagree
consistent or inconsistent

let's just use binary logic and line up our
yes points of agreement
no points of disagreement
and use our reasoning to resolve any conflicts
we can with these so we can focus on where we agree is a stable
focus and foundation to build upon. Thank you everyone!

special thanks to Boss Justin M.D. G.T. amrchaos
Sealybobo and anyone else willing to cross over and work
with others we don't understand and don't agree with.

the more we reach out and try to resolve issues
the Rubik's cube will work itself out and we
can align all our sides and see how our points fit together!

Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere. That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument. Why don't you read the thread. What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about? Most atheists are total idiots. You're a Christian right? You don't even believe what the Bible tells you? Paul's just kidding around? There's nothing to what he's saying? He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe. You don't know what they are? Seriously? Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe. Why? You don't have any reason to believe? Must be based on something. You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where? Can you even define God? What evidence spoke to you? You're the one saying you believe for no reason really. That can't be right. How can that be right? Where did you get the idea God? Do you know that much at least? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I know why I believe. The evidence is obvious. The real question is why do you believe? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. You're not making any sense. Come on, man! What made you believe that? That's all I'm asking you. Is it a secrete? Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to? You know that's not the real question. Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists. The Bible calls them fools. You don't know why they're fools? The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence. Things made you believe. What are they?

Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.

It's a secrete.

Seek and ye shall find.
Knock and the door shall be opened.

Inevitable is one of the rare people willing to ask direct
questions and listen and evaluate the answers as honestly as possible.

One of the strongest allies we can have to coordinate
input and participation from different people and perspectives
and still make sense of where these connect or disconnect.

Thanks for being here, Inevitable.
Let's keep asking until we get the answers that satisfy our questions and
resolve our issues. We keep asking, we keep receiving. That's how it works!

 

[Justin Davis]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere. That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument. Why don't you read the thread. What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about? Most atheists are total idiots. You're a Christian right? You don't even believe what the Bible tells you? Paul's just kidding around? There's nothing to what he's saying? He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe. You don't know what they are? Seriously? Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe. Why? You don't have any reason to believe? Must be based on something. You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where? Can you even define God? What evidence spoke to you? You're the one saying you believe for no reason really. That can't be right. How can that be right? Where did you get the idea God? Do you know that much at least? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I know why I believe. The evidence is obvious. The real question is why do you believe? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. You're not making any sense. Come on, man! What made you believe that? That's all I'm asking you. Is it a secrete? Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to? You know that's not the real question. Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists. The Bible calls them fools. You don't know why they're fools? The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence. Things made you believe. What are they?

Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.

Once again that's not the question and you know it since you talk about proof at the same time. You're a phony verging on being a liar. I'm not messing around with your questions because they're phony, you're answer is phony, you're phony. I know what the proofs and the evidence are, and I know the difference between logic and science. These things have been discussed, proven and demonstrated on this thread. Read the thread or just save yourself time and read Rawlings' posts because he's one of only a small number of people who knows what he's talking about. Start with this and you'll see yourself in it, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/ That way you can be a phony theist and a phony Christian knowing what's really true. Because phony is all you really want to be. The evidence and the proofs for God's existence are obvious. You said there's no proof or evidence. That's obviously not true, phony. You just believe because you want to. That's not true, phony. You don't believe simply because you want to, phony. You have proof and evidence in your mind and in the universe because you wouldn't even have an idea of God to believe in the first place without these things. You know what these things are. What are these things? Name them, phony.

 

[Justin Davis]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.

 

[emilynghiem]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.

No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
the homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.

Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
to look any further.

So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
follow their conscience to establish truth.

Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.

There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
a clear understanding that settles our conscience.

This is a good process. Why?
Because by answering these questions,
it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.

We can get the kinks out of the process
and set up smoother steps for others to follow
to come to similar conclusions at the end.

Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.

Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
are intellectually as honest as they can be
given they do not have the information and experience
I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.

The fact they are open at all, says a lot.

Please do not take this for granted
and think it is phony or a game.

The people I see who are biased against serious research to
settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
in response to how atheists have been bashed.
And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.

Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
science and medical studies that explaint he
process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
so that factor will help with reconciling all these
other issues in turn.

Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
while we seek corrections.

The ones who seek to exclude and divide
will find resolution later as the process moves forward.

The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
once this is proven to work in building a consensus.

 

[Boss]

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.

No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.

Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.

We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.

I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic.

 

[BreezeWood]

I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

your selective memory serves you poorly ...


gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?

.

Don't give me that selective memory crap. I cut you off in that post. I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into. I wrote a few more posts to you trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity. But, no, all I got from you were more of these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again. I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me. What is it?

I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism. No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this but you, Cornflake. What is it?

BreezeWood: "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"

Rawlings: "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader. What is it?"

yesterday


rawlings: in the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

your selective memory serves you poorly ...

then, today


r: Don't give me that selective memory crap. I cut you off in that post. I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into.


you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators

*or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.


your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.

.

 

[Justin Davis]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.

No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
the homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.

Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
to look any further.

So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
follow their conscience to establish truth.

Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.

There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
a clear understanding that settles our conscience.

This is a good process. Why?
Because by answering these questions,
it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.

We can get the kinks out of the process
and set up smoother steps for others to follow
to come to similar conclusions at the end.

Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.

Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
are intellectually as honest as they can be
given they do not have the information and experience
I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.

The fact they are open at all, says a lot.

Please do not take this for granted
and think it is phony or a game.

The people I see who are biased against serious research to
settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
in response to how atheists have been bashed.
And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.

Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
science and medical studies that explaint he
process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
so that factor will help with reconciling all these
other issues in turn.

Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
while we seek corrections.

The ones who seek to exclude and divide
will find resolution later as the process moves forward.

The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
once this is proven to work in building a consensus.

He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap. Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men. This is not about forgiveness or being nice. It's about the difference between men and women. He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists. Sorry. But that's baloney. Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place? He knows the answer to that question. The answer is not "I believe because I want to." He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.

 

[Justin Davis]

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.

No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.

Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.

We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.

I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic.

Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind. Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality. That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true. Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic. Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

then, today


r: Don't give me that selective memory crap. I cut you off in that post. I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into.


you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators

*or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.


your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.

.

Your fifteen minutes of infamous duh are over, Cornflake.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.

Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.

We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.

I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic.

Boss is Refuted!

I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.

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!

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.

No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.

Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.

We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.

I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic.

Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind. Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality. That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true. Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic. Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.

That's not what I get from what Boss is saying.
Boss is saying that for the gift of logic to come from God to bestow in man,
the God created this logic like part of the laws of science or anything else that are part of the world/creation
made by God.

Boss is setting logic at that level.

So we are basically talking about different LEVELS of logic
and these are not the same concepts, that's why the words conflict.

We need better language to distinguish these levels.

Now Boss brings up spiritual awareness.
So obviously Boss calls these levels by different terms
and divides the spectrum differently between what is
knowledge on man's side and what is the part on God's side.

We just have to line up where all these terms fall on
the spiritual spectrum, and making sure we aren't talking past each other.