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

[Justin Davis]

Rawlings, why don't you stop lying and contorting what people say and drop all the long-winded high brow pontifications? You can sit here and insult me all day long, it doesn't effect me. Is it making you feel better about yourself? Do you think it's impressing other people? So what is your purpose?

There is no such thing as "God's Logic" and it has nothing to do with 2+2 or my mental stability. It also has nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a God. The term "God's Logic" is simply your way of elevating human logic and making it seem more important than it really is. You feel the need to do this in order to make your argument more valid but it only serves to demonstrate your arrogance.

The only "proof" for God is faith in God. The "evidence" for God is quite simple, man exists. If there were no such thing as God, man couldn't exist. We're too smart for our own good. With our level of ingenuity and imagination, the world would have been destroyed in chaos without something to reel us back in and humble us. So you are making a completely unnecessary complex argument when the argument is really very simple. Then you are condemning people for not going along with your complex argument by repeatedly beating them down with insults. This has resulted in getting you nowhere, in fact, you have actually LOST ground in this debate.

Rawlings is not lying, you . He understands what any sane person should understand, the same thing that I and some others said to you way back. It's the same thing that the world's theists and religions in history say to you. We understand where your logic leads and what it would mean about reality and about God (no God or a crazy God) and you don't, nutjob. You're just totally out of touch with the reality of your thinking. You're the one insulting people, nubjob, insulting people's intelligence like you know what you're talking about when theists who understand this in history know you're a fruitcake. You , this idea you have is the same argument made by atheists about ultimate reality to argue against God existence, plank head. Go tell your stories to Inevitable. He's an idiot who goes with the crowd. Maybe he'll believe your jive. He likes stories and endless gossip, anything but the topic of this OP.

 

[Justin Davis]

This has resulted in getting you nowhere, in fact, you have actually LOST ground in this debate.

The Cultish, Self-Deluded and Self-Brainwashed Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap, has Nothing Now but My Utter Contempt!

Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot! Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you. Your notion would most especially overthrow pantheism/panentheism!

And, in the meantime, Amrchaos just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system", Boss, whether it be nature or God.

Just because you cannot apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over you head.

That's all. That's your problem, not mine.

Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your 2 + 2 = 4 analogy earlier on this thread.

We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does not agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.

I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.

Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.

I understand what Boss is trying to say though.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!


I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.

Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.

"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!


The Three Refusals:

1. "I refuse to believe what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

2. "I don't care what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

3. "The formal axioms of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, 2 + 2 = 4 would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​

The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are not logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, a priori axioms of human cognition, Emily!

Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!

These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!

Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.

 

[Inevitable]

Inevitable the Drama Queen


Inevitable: Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. Giggle It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. Giggle I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? Giggle I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, God, you know, God. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. Giggle

I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. Giggle I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. Giggle

And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. Giggle

Well, that’s all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? Giggle I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, one of the cool sheep. Giggle Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. Giggle Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. Giggle

Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? Giggle

I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop-poop doesn't stink. Giggle And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. Giggle And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and stars and sparkly things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is People. Oh, I'm really good at talking but never really saying anything at all that matters about anything. Giggle I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. Giggle I'm so cute and funny that way.

Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .

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

The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

Trying to discredit me with childish behavior doesn't prove your point.

 

[Inevitable]

Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?

Such as?

Such as every time you called me a punk or a phoney.

You frighten so easily from discussion that forces you to think, you just lash out at people.

It's quite sad.

You don't like me. Got it punk. I got it the first time punk. I don't like your ****** ass. So now we're even.





Topic. OP. Facts. Issues. Got any?

I don't think the topic is whether or not we like each other. I am sorry you don't like me, though I can't really do anything about that.

But if you ever stopworrying about me and my sexuality and how I feel about you, we could get back on the topic.

Which is proof that God exists I am still waiting.

Go play with your poodle.

This is off topic.

Thanks for conceding the point. But you could try to be less of a sore loser.

 

[Inevitable]

The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!


I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.

Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.

"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!


The Three Refusals:

1. "I refuse to believe what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

2. "I don't care what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

3. "The formal axioms of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, 2 + 2 = 4 would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​

The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are not logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, a priori axioms of human cognition, Emily!

Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!

These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!

Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.

I am not being intolerant and narrow minded because I hold your feet to the fire.

You said their was proof of God existing. If there is, I would like to know because it would help in converting atheists.

You seem to be calling me intolerant because I am skeptical and speech this subject from an unbiased stand point. I simply don't let my belief cloud my judgement

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I understand what Boss is trying to say though.

Boss Special Knowledge is Weird


So do I. As I said before it's rather ingenious . . . at first blush, if we pretend the problems don't exist. Generally, it's an old idea, a failed idea, one better suited to materialism proper, but his particular take on it is rare, not new to me, because I considered it from this angle years ago when I was still an atheist, but rare, more sophisticated than most of the historical renditions.

But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things. God doesn't have to think about anything. What does He need logic for? Boom! The perfect knowledge of all of existence or potential existents is in God's mind all at once and all the "time."

But only those who go Wow and stop thinking are going to buy it.

For the question arises, one that we're apparently not permitted to ask if Boss is right, that I'm an idiot and a liar: well, does God hold that all things are one and the same thing?

How could that be? Does God know there's a difference between dogs and cats, or not? And if He doesn't, how can He have all-knowledge? More to the point, how can He have less knowledge than we have? God must have the delineating logic of the three laws of thought!

Any way we go at it, we cannot escape thinking about Him as one Who has a mind just like ours, albeit, infinitely greater. And we cannot think how His logic could possibly be different than ours. God's logic is eternal, for it is His preexistent logic endowed to us, not created! If we're wrong, we're wrong. But that wouldn't make any difference to us. Any attempt to negate this apparent necessity is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves the opposite must be true. God did not create logic!

And the final issue: God, by definition, is all-knowing; hence, He would know that we can't logically hold that He doesn't have logic and that He doesn't have or didn't have (pantheism/panentheism) a mind like ours, though one much, much greater. So a perfect God, knowing this, intentionally gave us minds and a form of logic that leads us to believe things that are not true about Him, a form of logic that, ultimately, gives us no certainty about anything? Indeed, where does Boss get off asserting this apparent absurdity as an absolute fact when the ramifications of his very own premise assert that nothing is absolutely certain?

Huh? Special pleading? Special knowledge? Special logic? Boss knows something the rest of us don't?

That's weird.

 

[Hollie]

The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!


I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.

Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.

"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!


The Three Refusals:

1. "I refuse to believe what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

2. "I don't care what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

3. "The formal axioms of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, 2 + 2 = 4 would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​

The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are not logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, a priori axioms of human cognition, Emily!

Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!

These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!

Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.

Fundie whackjob, there is no such thing as "bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought".

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?

Likely story.

The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality

No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread: Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.

All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it’s possible to refute these things?

In your dreams, Missy.

The real argument is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.

The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, refute each other, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.

BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the potential validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.

Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!

I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.

But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.

(I'm reminded of The Mummy starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." Relativists.)

Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are not logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're trying to defend against Boss' assault.

In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the God axiom, even though it throws atheism into the sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.

And why is that true?

Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the God axiom is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, a priori axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.

Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply shift to or adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now, even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the God axiom and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical a priorities that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.

These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.

Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.

 

[Boss]

Rawlings, you just keep pretending that I have made some irrational argument that everyone has refuted and they all agree with you and Justin... that only demonstrates what a nut job you are.

You have simply not explained why an OMNIPOTENT God would be, should be, or could be constrained by LOGIC or any damn thing else your feeble mind conjures up.

All you are doing now is flailing away at me with baseless insults and claims of outrageous shit I never said. And you have the ******* nerve to use people who totally reject your argument as those who take your side against me. You're a pathetic joke, Rawlings. You're the closed-minded prick here and I believe everyone would agree with me except for Justin, who seems to have his head so far up your ass he could give you a visual colon exam. Do you two belong to the same church?

 

[Boss]

But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.

No, that would be OMNISCIENT... Which God also IS!

You are the one clinging to some irrational belief that God Almighty is somehow confined to your human imagination and humanistic constraints of thought. You're a ******* whack job!

 

[BreezeWood]

Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?

Likely story.

The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality

No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:

No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread:

......

No one comes to the Father except through me.

when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -


* (Hint) temper tantrums are not a response ...

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!


I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.

Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.

"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!


The Three Refusals:

1. "I refuse to believe what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

2. "I don't care what the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

3. "The formal axioms of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, 2 + 2 = 4 would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​

The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are not logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, a priori axioms of human cognition, Emily!

Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!

These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!

Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.

Fundie whackjob, there is no such thing as "bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought".

You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean tabula rasa has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an a priori operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.

No, that would be OMNISCIENT... Which God also IS!

You are the one clinging to some irrational belief that God Almighty is somehow confined to your human imagination and humanistic constraints of thought. You're a ******* whack job!

Yes, of course, omniscient. That's what I meant, forget about what I wrote. I'm the whack job? Well, then, jackass, I'm in good company, for only a small minority of histories religious systems of thought, invariably cultish in nature, hold to your brainwashed nonsense; you know, how like the billions of monotheistic and pantheistic believers of the world think you're the whack job, whack job, for obvious reasons.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Edit: In post #4807, I wrote omnipotent, but should read omniscient.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Rawlings, you just keep pretending that I have made some irrational argument that everyone has refuted and they all agree with you and Justin... that only demonstrates what a nut job you are.

You have simply not explained why an OMNIPOTENT God would be, should be, or could be constrained by LOGIC or any damn thing else your feeble mind conjures up.

All you are doing now is flailing away at me with baseless insults and claims of outrageous shit I never said. And you have the ******* nerve to use people who totally reject your argument as those who take your side against me. You're a pathetic joke, Rawlings. You're the closed-minded prick here and I believe everyone would agree with me except for Justin, who seems to have his head so far up your ass he could give you a visual colon exam. Do you two belong to the same church?

You're outside your mind.

No, I'm exposing a fool for what he is, because instead of conceding the obvious, he insists on blathering CULTISH HOGWASH OF A BRAINWASHED KIND, as he tries to discredit the only rational conclusion and discredit me by repeatedly calling me an idiot and a liar like a raving lunatic.

You have not explained how logic would constrain God in the first place. How could/would logic constrain God? And I have emphatically and repeatedly stated, you know, against the arguments of the likes of QW and Foxfyre (Recall?), who tried to play the same game that you're playing right now, that there are no constraints on God's power whatsoever . . . save one: God = God; God ≠ NOT-God, the latter being the ramification of your idea, not mine!

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. . . .

 

[Boss]

But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.

No, that would be OMNISCIENT... Which God also IS!

You are the one clinging to some irrational belief that God Almighty is somehow confined to your human imagination and humanistic constraints of thought. You're a ******* whack job!

Yes, of course, omniscient. That's what I meant, forget about what I wrote. I'm the whack job? Well, then, jackass, I'm in good company, for only a small minority of histories religious systems of thought, invariably cultish in nature, hold to your brainwashed nonsense; you know, how like the billions of monotheistic and pantheistic believers of the world think you're the whack job, whack job, for obvious reasons.

I wish we could forget about what you write, but you just keep on posting nonsense. Yep, you're the certifiable whack job here, you and Justin. And no, you're not in good company because the vast and overwhelming majority of believers in God believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. Next thing you know, you and Justin will be arguing that God isn't omnipresent because He's constrained by the principles of physics! (*GOD's Physics... which God didn't create!)

He's suggesting that because God is [omniscient], He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.

And you are suggesting that your God doesn't.

 

[Boss]

Rawlings, you just keep pretending that I have made some irrational argument that everyone has refuted and they all agree with you and Justin... that only demonstrates what a nut job you are.

You have simply not explained why an OMNIPOTENT God would be, should be, or could be constrained by LOGIC or any damn thing else your feeble mind conjures up.

All you are doing now is flailing away at me with baseless insults and claims of outrageous shit I never said. And you have the ******* nerve to use people who totally reject your argument as those who take your side against me. You're a pathetic joke, Rawlings. You're the closed-minded prick here and I believe everyone would agree with me except for Justin, who seems to have his head so far up your ass he could give you a visual colon exam. Do you two belong to the same church?

You're outside your mind.

No, I'm exposing a fool for what he is, because instead of conceding the obvious, he insists on blathering CULTISH HOGWASH OF A BRAINWASHED KIND, as he tries to discredit the only rational conclusion and discredit me by repeatedly calling me an idiot and a liar like a raving lunatic.

You have not explained how logic would constrain God in the first place. How could/would logic constrain God? And I have emphatically and repeatedly stated, you know, against the arguments of the likes of QW and Foxfyre (Recall?), who tried to play the same game that you're playing right now, that there are no constraints on God's power whatsoever . . . save one: God = God; God ≠ NOT-God, the latter being the ramification of your idea, not mine!

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. . . .

That is YOUR argument, lunkhead! Now you are running back to the position that God is omnipotent and not constrained by things like Logic or Sentience. Which one is it?

I don't know about other people's arguments, I am not making their argument, I am making MY argument, and you're not refuting it. Instead, you seem to be totally agreeing with my argument, and pretending I've made some contradicting argument that wasn't made. Save the formulas for someone who is arguing algebra... I've said none of that shit.
God=God
Logic=Logic
God ≠ Logic!
Logic ≠ God!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.

If God went to the 'Whole Markets Food' grocery store, would he ask for paper, or plastic?

.

Definitely paper! That's directly comprised of a substance from His creation. Now angels prefer plastic because it's more durable and lasts longer against the wind shear of the high speeds at which they fly when they carry things along with them on their errands like angel dust and whatnot.

 

[percysunshine]

.

If God went to the 'Whole Markets Food' grocery store, would he ask for paper, or plastic?

.

Definitely paper! That's directly comprised of a substance from His creation. Now angels prefer plastic because it's more durable and lasts longer against the wind shear of the high speeds at which they fly when they carry things along with them on their errands like angel dust and whatnot.

I think God would ask for plastic. As a petroleum based product, plastic was originally a tree that was buried, heated, and squished. God would know that paper and plastic are the same thing.

.