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

[G.T.]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. I use to play the horses. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

Would you please tell us how a post from Emily in effect saying that you need to go through your emotional rant bully boy phase in order to learn from it.........................

has you responding about organic thought?


Try comprehending what you read, or go back to plumbing man. It's better that the extent of your big thoughts for a day's time is whether or not to advise customers not to use drain cleaner products because of their corrosive nature in order to retain some future business.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

^ Hi Justin I think you just answered your own question ^

A. either your logic is saying this is crazy and other people are following God's logic and saying you are crazy
B. or you are following God's logic telling you this is nuts and other people are following human logic and
THINK they are right

Because of the contradiction,
that shows where man's logic is divorced from higher logic.

one says one thing, the other says another

We are left asking what is the deal?

And we all struggle to reconcile why our perceptions/logic are telling us
something different so that the other person protests and say
hey it's the other way, it's not me it's you, back and forth

We are struggling to reconcile our limited perception or conflicting logic
with the truth out there that would resolve all our different perceptions
that are clashing until we learn to communicate and get on the same page!

Perfect example Justin
thank you for this!

P.S. for a Venn diagram, if you can imagine God's knowledge or truth is the entire
page, and everyone just has a limited circle or subset of that surface as our immediate perception, then we are struggling to map out the entire surface that we can cover,
but everyone just has some circles where some overlap, some include areas but
exclude others. God's knowledge is like the UNION of all these subsets,
and Christ is like where each of us AGREES or intersects with neighbors, so all those points of agreement add up to be the whole plane also, but limited to different points for different people to discover and may not be the same points for other people who add their own to the big picture.

 

[Justin Davis]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

What a total phony. I asked you if you existed, punk. You said that you know you existed, punk. I asked how you came to exist, punk. "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk? You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk. You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk. Those are the options, punk.

Hi Justin
if God is unconditional
then to be more like God would mean
not to impose conditions for our own convenience
that are not necessary for our neighbors.

Inevitable may not need to agree on where things in existence came from
(as I would say only God can know all things and we can only know a finite subset of God's knowledge/truth)

But we can still talk about HOW THINGS WORK WITHIN
the given existence. If it isn't necessary to make a condition out of
knowing or not knowing, agreeing or not agreeing on the source of life/creation/universal laws/truth/knowledge,
why pick this fight?

Justin as a Christian you know there is no works or condition
on God's gift of grace, by forgiving by asking to receive we receive.

So as long as Inevitable is ASKING to see certain points or parts
he is interested in exploring, why not follow with him on that path and try to provide meaningful points?

If we cannot demonstrate using live science where the Creation came from,
why not focus on Spiritual Healing or some other meaningful process that
CAN BE demonstrated using science and replicated studies and research.

That can still provide some answers or insights!

I would not pick fights where those conditions are not necessary.

Justin it's like a car, I don't have to know where all the parts were made
to drive the car. Let's just agree what is the safe operation of the car,
the proper ways to drive in relation to others on the road, and dangers to avoid.
We don't have to understand all the mechanics, leave that to the mechanics!

Thanks Justin

If you can see that Inevitable is intellectually honest and sincere
maybe more people can see that you are trying to communicate also
and if there are failures it isn't because you have the wrong intent
it's because our views are so different we can't yet figure out
where the other person is coming from which doesn't make sense to us

We are all struggling this way, but we all have intent of establishing
truth and correcting errors conflicts or inconsistencies

Inevitable is a good person to work with, and will likely serve
as very useful in mediating between people and groups
struggling with these same issues. If you and he can figure
out how to communicate across your different perspectives,
you can both help the next set of people to bridge that gap.

This is not a futile exercise but an investment in learning
how to resolve issues and deal with this process of
theists and nontheists speaking two different languages
and talking past each other. how do we align our points
and principles where we focus on the same things?
and not get distracted or divided over our differences that
we can resolve as we go. how do we prioritize and resolve
things one step at a time. how do we work together when
both sides don't make sense to each other, what is the
best process to follow where we can progress and get somewhere productive.

thanks!

The topic of the OP is about the arguments for God's existence. I gave you and Boss some links about the TAG that shows why in organic logic it's not logically possible to argue against the existence of God, the laws of logic or the idea that the laws of logic are God's logic. That's the truth. It's not logically possible to do that. People are trying to argue against that and can't. That's what's being proved. Everyone can see that, people are being phonies. I'm not doing anything wrong, the phonies are. Are you one of the phonies? Are you gong to stand up for the truth?

 

[G.T.]

Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.

 

[emilynghiem]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

What a total phony. I asked you if you existed, punk. You said that you know you existed, punk. I asked how you came to exist, punk. "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk? You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk. You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk. Those are the options, punk.

Hi Justin
if God is unconditional
then to be more like God would mean
not to impose conditions for our own convenience
that are not necessary for our neighbors.

Inevitable may not need to agree on where things in existence came from
(as I would say only God can know all things and we can only know a finite subset of God's knowledge/truth)

But we can still talk about HOW THINGS WORK WITHIN
the given existence. If it isn't necessary to make a condition out of
knowing or not knowing, agreeing or not agreeing on the source of life/creation/universal laws/truth/knowledge,
why pick this fight?

Justin as a Christian you know there is no works or condition
on God's gift of grace, by forgiving by asking to receive we receive.

So as long as Inevitable is ASKING to see certain points or parts
he is interested in exploring, why not follow with him on that path and try to provide meaningful points?

If we cannot demonstrate using live science where the Creation came from,
why not focus on Spiritual Healing or some other meaningful process that
CAN BE demonstrated using science and replicated studies and research.

That can still provide some answers or insights!

I would not pick fights where those conditions are not necessary.

Justin it's like a car, I don't have to know where all the parts were made
to drive the car. Let's just agree what is the safe operation of the car,
the proper ways to drive in relation to others on the road, and dangers to avoid.
We don't have to understand all the mechanics, leave that to the mechanics!

Thanks Justin

If you can see that Inevitable is intellectually honest and sincere
maybe more people can see that you are trying to communicate also
and if there are failures it isn't because you have the wrong intent
it's because our views are so different we can't yet figure out
where the other person is coming from which doesn't make sense to us

We are all struggling this way, but we all have intent of establishing
truth and correcting errors conflicts or inconsistencies

Inevitable is a good person to work with, and will likely serve
as very useful in mediating between people and groups
struggling with these same issues. If you and he can figure
out how to communicate across your different perspectives,
you can both help the next set of people to bridge that gap.

This is not a futile exercise but an investment in learning
how to resolve issues and deal with this process of
theists and nontheists speaking two different languages
and talking past each other. how do we align our points
and principles where we focus on the same things?
and not get distracted or divided over our differences that
we can resolve as we go. how do we prioritize and resolve
things one step at a time. how do we work together when
both sides don't make sense to each other, what is the
best process to follow where we can progress and get somewhere productive.

thanks!

The topic of the OP is about the arguments for God's existence. I gave you and Boss some links about the TAG that shows why in organic logic it's not logically possible to argue against the existence of God, the laws of logic or the idea that the laws of logic are God's logic. That's the truth. It's not logically possible to do that. People are trying to argue against that and can't. That's what's being proved. Everyone can see that, people are being phonies. I'm not doing anything wrong, the phonies are. Are you one of the phonies? Are you gong to stand up for the truth?

I am also trying to apply this same model to other starting points.

Other people frame God/Creation with a similar starting point
then they refute contradictions from there.

Together, Justin, we establish the common truths
and remove the errors.

Justin, why do you call people liars or phonies
just because we have different starting points.

God is in charge and made us all unique souls for a reason.

Are you saying God "doesn't know what he is doing by making
us so diverse" and we should be all the same?

Then why didn't God make us all the same?
Sorry that doesn't make sense to me.

it makes more sense to me that
God and Christ use ALL THINGS
and they are diverse for a reason.

This is NOT phony this is REAL!

This is NOT BAD, this is GOOD to find God's purpose
for these differences.

Sorry Justin I don't mean to scare you into worrying
that I am being phony.

I don't disagree with you at all, just taking the
same model steps and process and applying it to
more people and situations that follow the SAME PATTERN as in TAG.

I believe this is EVEN GREATER PROOF that
it's the same God if the ==>PATTERN<== is the same
no matter "how many variations" of the same steps there are.

it's still essentially the same arguments so you are right.
the base core is the same.

other people are following or EXPRESSING these "same arguments"
but applied to "different contexts" using different terms/points of references

is that more clear, Justin?
Thanks!

 

[Justin Davis]

Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.

Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say. My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid. Are you still a kid, a little boy? Science doesn't prove things, logic does. Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony. The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true. Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic. You can't do that phony.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.

 

[G.T.]

Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.

Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say. My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid. Are you still a kid, a little boy? Science doesn't prove things, logic does. Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony. The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true. Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic. You can't do that phony.

No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.

Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.

Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.

You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.

 

[Justin Davis]

Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.

It's in post 4622. "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."

 

[Justin Davis]

Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.

Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say. My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid. Are you still a kid, a little boy? Science doesn't prove things, logic does. Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony. The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true. Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic. You can't do that phony.

No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.

Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.

Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.

You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.

Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony. This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you it.

 

[Boss]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

 

[G.T.]

Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.

Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say. My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid. Are you still a kid, a little boy? Science doesn't prove things, logic does. Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony. The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true. Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic. You can't do that phony.

No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.

Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.

Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.

You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.

Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony. This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you it.

I never said axioms were, dunce.

I said it's not an axiom to begin with.

You dip, duck and dodge that because it's necessary for you to save face for a failed assertion.

But noone being dumber than you, it logically follows that it's above your head.

 

[Justin Davis]

Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.

Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say. My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid. Are you still a kid, a little boy? Science doesn't prove things, logic does. Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony. The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true. Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic. You can't do that phony.

No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.

Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.

Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.

You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.

Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony. This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you it.

I never said axioms were, dunce.

I said it's not an axiom to begin with.

You dip, duck and dodge that because it's necessary for you to save face for a failed assertion.

But noone being dumber than you, it logically follows that it's above your head.

I know what you said, you retarded phony. You said it's not an axiom because it's an informal logical fallacy, you retarded phony. The axioms of organic logic are not informal logical fallacies, because they're true no matter what, you retarded phony. If your retarded phoniness were true than all axioms of organic logic would be informal logical fallacies, including A:A=A, you retarded phony.

 

[G.T.]

Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.

Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say. My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid. Are you still a kid, a little boy? Science doesn't prove things, logic does. Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony. The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true. Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic. You can't do that phony.

No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.

Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.

Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.

You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.

Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony. This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you it.

I never said axioms were, dunce.

I said it's not an axiom to begin with.

You dip, duck and dodge that because it's necessary for you to save face for a failed assertion.

But noone being dumber than you, it logically follows that it's above your head.

I know what you said, you retarded phony. You said it's not an axiom because it's an informal logical fallacy, you retarded phony. The axioms of organic logic are not informal logical fallacies, because they're true no matter what, you retarded phony. If your retarded phoniness were true than all axioms of organic logic would be informal logical fallacies, including A:A=A, you retarded phony.

a:a=a =/= "god created knowledge"


you lemming.

I said it's not an axiom because the other possibilities are not ruled out, and also because it's not universally accepted.
I said it's an informal fallacy because, failing the axiom exclusion, it begs the question and is viciously circular.

I'm tired of your dunce ass not being able to read for accuracy and misinterpreting everything everybody said. God damn, you need to sign off my internet heathen.

 

[Justin Davis]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Bonehead phony. Logic doesn't say or believe things, people do. Look at all you phonies. Now all you have left are phony bonehead statements. Logic never fails. If you plug bad information into reason you will get bad conclusions, bonehead phony. It's not logic's fault, it's the fault of bad information, like your bonehead phony information in your bonehead phony post, bonehead phony. You and Rawlings explained that to that bonehead phony armchaos about electrons. What a phony you are. And besides, you bonehead phony, you're talking about inductive reasoning, not the irritable axioms of deductive reasoning. What a total phony. Now you're contradicting what you told armchaos. Let's see if armchaos is gong to correct your phoniness about the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. He won't because he's a phony like all you other phonies pretending that all your phoniness is real. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

 

[G.T.]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Bonehead phony. Logic doesn't say or believe things, people do. Look at all you phonies. Now all you have left are phony bonehead statements. Logic never fails. If you plug bad information into reason you will get bad conclusions, bonehead phony. It's not logic's fault, it's the fault of bad information, like you bonehead phony information, bonehead phony. You and Rawlings explained that to that bonehead phony armchaos about electrons. What a phony you are.

temper tantrums man, thats all your posts rise to ^^^

 

[Taz]

Is this based on fact or fantasy?

It's based on faith, Taz.

Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only believe we know truth.

How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take.

Using these:

Axiom:

As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

True:

in accordance with fact

controversy:

disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.


And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?

In essence, everything you believe is based on faith. It doesn't matter that you define it as an axiom. That is simply a testament to the degree of faith you have in your belief.

You see... I believe in a God who is smarter than Rawlings. Logic doesn't control my God. The parameters of human thought are never more powerful than God. So we can all argue back and forth about what we believe or don't believe, it all boils down to our faith.

No, it all boils down to facts, and fact is you live in a fantasy world where fact and fairy tales mingle.

 

[emilynghiem]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

 

[emilynghiem]

Is this based on fact or fantasy?

It's based on faith, Taz.

Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only believe we know truth.

How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take.

Using these:

Axiom:

As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

True:

in accordance with fact

controversy:

disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.


And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?

In essence, everything you believe is based on faith. It doesn't matter that you define it as an axiom. That is simply a testament to the degree of faith you have in your belief.

You see... I believe in a God who is smarter than Rawlings. Logic doesn't control my God. The parameters of human thought are never more powerful than God. So we can all argue back and forth about what we believe or don't believe, it all boils down to our faith.

No, it all boils down to facts, and fact is you live in a fantasy world where fact and fairy tales mingle.

I thought Boss was trying very hard to be realistic here.
What are you talking about TAZ? Missed something, sorry!

Dear Boss:
Re: "Logic doesn't control my God."

No, I don't see MD trying to use Logic to CONTROL God
but trying to pinpoint the points and steps by which
people can come to terms with God.
we are using the Logic as a tool to either
agree on definitions/points or to hash out
what problems we see with the process.

So it is tool to help PEOPLE.

I think you must mean that MD is trying to control people's
discussions of God by forcing this "as the only way" or
the best way to talk about God and to reach agreement on
what he sees as clearly universal and absolute points.

He is like the professor who is convinced that quantum
mechanics is the best gift in the world,
or using facebook or skype as a medium is the "end all be all"
that is going to connect and save all humanity.

Yes and no.
Yes, it is the core of points and process that if we
all go through and come to terms with, yes we will all be on the same page
and can resolve any other conflicts to the contrary preventing that unity.

But no, other people need to add some other
process or perspectives for their own experience and
path with this same process. so it is greater than just
the literal TAG proof itself, it is the whole process around it, too!

MD and Justin don't see this becuse they are not process people.
they are black and white, you are either with the picture or
you are a "liar and phony"

I don't get this black and white, kill all the lawyers approach.
but that is how they think and the challenge is to
work with that and with people like you and me who
include other factors and ways of processing this same content.

we really need both, and find where these connect and agree.

I guess it is easier for me to come from a relative position
and include the absolutes and the relatives
but for someone who only thinks in absolutes
they can't always include the relative approaches.

If you are multilingual and each person only speaks one language
then the multilingual person ends up changing language for
each person, but that person doesn't have to accommodate the
others they just keep speaking only their language and translation is needed.

the content is absolute
but the language and context is relative

Justin and MD don't get this
or they take it for granted they don't need to mess with it
and everyone else is going to have to translate back and forth for them
while they only speak their native language and nothing else.

 

[Justin Davis]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

Come on. We've already defined what logic we're talking about. We're talking about the three formal organic laws of thought, the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle and the absolute standard of objectivity. It's been thoroughly defined. GT keeps trying to impose the fallacies of informal logic that only apply to secondary propositions, not to the axioms of formal logic. He's an idiot. He knows he cannot refute the axioms of formal logic. He's phony. Boss is trying to argue that an imaginary absurdity, which is a secondary proposition that is a logical fallacy refutes formal axiom. They are phonies. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof phonies everywhere.