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

[Boss]

Reduced to the cred of that imbecile Fancy Pants. Why, Boss? Why did you do it? Why did you not jump the ship of relativism when you had the chance?
And this for the inscription on your headstone, poor sap: "Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!" We even tossed you a line.

Sorry, I don't want your line, Justin. I'm content with MY God who trumps YOUR God because mine is omniscient and omnipotent and yours is a purely human construct.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well... No, they aren't just like any other existent. Do other things that physically exist pop into and out of existence or exist in two places at once? Or does that simply defy "logic" with other things? How can a "law of identity" apply to an electron which has become non-existent or occupying two places in space at the same time? The identity of something that doesn't exist is, it does not exist. The identity of something that exists in two places is, it has dual identity.

The ONLY reason we can define this as "logical" is because we know now that it happens. Before we knew that, we would have said that it was illogical. We can clearly see that "logic" is not something divine or infallible, but rather a construct of philosophical human thought and perception.

How does it defy logic? My God! You're arguing QW's whackadoodle now, shades of armchaos. You've totally flipped from your previous position. Why, Boss? Why did you do it? Hey, whackadoodle, how are we able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles. Oh, I know. Because of the laws of logic, you idiot. Identify. Distinguish. Exclude. Those are the operations. Why, Boss. Why did you do it? You went from Boss to whackadoodle.

 

[Justin Davis]

Reduced to the cred of that imbecile Fancy Pants. Why, Boss? Why did you do it? Why did you not jump the ship of relativism when you had the chance?
And this for the inscription on your headstone, poor sap: "Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!" We even tossed you a line.

Sorry, I don't want your line, Justin. I'm content with MY God who trumps YOUR God because mine is omniscient and omnipotent and yours is a purely human construct.

Your god is you Boss, a total whackadoodle not making a lick of sense. Why, Boss? Why did you do it?

 

[Justin Davis]

This isn't even fun any more.

Dumb Blond Justin

 

[Boss]

Well... No, they aren't just like any other existent. Do other things that physically exist pop into and out of existence or exist in two places at once? Or does that simply defy "logic" with other things? How can a "law of identity" apply to an electron which has become non-existent or occupying two places in space at the same time? The identity of something that doesn't exist is, it does not exist. The identity of something that exists in two places is, it has dual identity.

The ONLY reason we can define this as "logical" is because we know now that it happens. Before we knew that, we would have said that it was illogical. We can clearly see that "logic" is not something divine or infallible, but rather a construct of philosophical human thought and perception.

How does it defy logic? My God! You're arguing QW's whackadoodle now, shades of armchaos. You've totally flipped from your previous position. Why, Boss? Why did you do it? Hey, whackadoodle, how are we able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles. Oh, I know. Because of the laws of logic, you idiot. Identify. Distinguish. Exclude. Those are the operations. Why, Boss. Why did you do it? You went from Boss to whackadoodle.

How does it defy logic? Well let's see... you are sitting at your computer typing right now, is it logical that you are also in Africa helping an Ebola patient? Would you consider it logical if you suddenly vanished from existence? We're able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles because, a few years ago, we invented a large hadron collider which smashes atoms.

I don't know where you get that I've flipped my position on anything... nor do I get why you keep repeating yourself like a drunken meth head.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well... No, they aren't just like any other existent. Do other things that physically exist pop into and out of existence or exist in two places at once? Or does that simply defy "logic" with other things? How can a "law of identity" apply to an electron which has become non-existent or occupying two places in space at the same time? The identity of something that doesn't exist is, it does not exist. The identity of something that exists in two places is, it has dual identity.

The ONLY reason we can define this as "logical" is because we know now that it happens. Before we knew that, we would have said that it was illogical. We can clearly see that "logic" is not something divine or infallible, but rather a construct of philosophical human thought and perception.

How does it defy logic? My God! You're arguing QW's whackadoodle now, shades of armchaos. You've totally flipped from your previous position. Why, Boss? Why did you do it? Hey, whackadoodle, how are we able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles. Oh, I know. Because of the laws of logic, you idiot. Identify. Distinguish. Exclude. Those are the operations. Why, Boss. Why did you do it? You went from Boss to whackadoodle.

How does it defy logic? Well let's see... you are sitting at your computer typing right now, is it logical that you are also in Africa helping an Ebola patient? Would you consider it logical if you suddenly vanished from existence? We're able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles because, a few years ago, we invented a large hadron collider which smashes atoms.

I don't know where you get that I've flipped my position on anything... nor do I get why you keep repeating yourself like a drunken meth head.

More on Boss' Shamelessly Depraved Demagoguery

Quantum physics/quantum logic does not defy the three laws of organic/classical thought. Desperation now? Is that it? The retarded, pseudoscientific blather of QW-Foxfyre-Amrchaos roundly falsified on this thread by Delta4Embassy and I?

As Justin correctly points out, the fundamental operations of the laws of thought are identification, distinction and exclusion. If quantum physics/quantum logic defied organic logic we wouldn't be able to understand the former, you drooling retard. You're conflating our three-dimensional level of sensory perception with our obvious ability to apprehend and assimilate, with no sweat, the properties and behavioral characteristics of the foundational, subatomic level of quantum physics. Your analogy has nothing to do with logic as such . . . except for the fact that you're necessarily asserting the first law of organic thought (the law of identity) in order to make the very distinction you're making.

The law of identity itself holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction, the foundational axiom for all forms of logic and mathematical calculi. We wouldn't be able to do the multidimensional calculi of infinitesimals if what you're implying were true. Shut up! Indeed, it's precisely due to the ramifications of the law of identity that we are able to coherently comprehend the exigencies of divine omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, you depraved, contemptible fraud.

You don't even realize that, once again, you're not only undermining the case for theism, but the construct of omniscience relative to actual free will . . . just like that mealy mouthed fraud Foxfyre:

Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number: (1) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in Post #4194), (2) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary, Posts #4901 and #4905, and in Post #4195) and (3) the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.

The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (for any given A: A = A, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction): See Posts #2358, #2368, #2359 and #2405.​

I've already refuted this retarded, pseudoscientific blather here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10156988/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157116/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157191/

 

[Justin Davis]

How does it defy logic? Well let's see... you are sitting at your computer typing right now, is it logical that you are also in Africa helping an Ebola patient? Would you consider it logical if you suddenly vanished from existence? We're able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles because, a few years ago, we invented a large hadron collider which smashes atoms.

I don't know where you get that I've flipped my position on anything... nor do I get why you keep repeating yourself like a drunken meth head.

Disgusting behavior.

 

[Inevitable]

He isn't even a clever troll. Trolls can be entertaining but these two are just silly. Long winded speeches, that isn't how you troll

And it took you all of two seconds to close your mind again. That's a record even for you. But what am I talking about? You don't have a mind at all, much less one that's open.

Well you called me a phoney and a punk. You posted nothing of any depth.

Why should I even give you a second thought.

 

[Inevitable]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: I'm not telling you! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Then why do you believe God exists?

Inevitable: Because.

Rawlings: Why is there no proof?

Inevitable: You're a poop-poop head.

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. You're mean. I hate you. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Shut up! Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP. I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

 

[Hollie]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following.

Inevitable: No!

You never offered anything supportive of the existence of any of the gawds.

Your tedious cutting and pasting is a laughable joke.

 

[G.T.]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: No! I'm not telling you!

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

Like BreezeWood, who did nothing but preach, never answering a single question asked of him about what he was trying to say.

What does this mean, BreezeWood?

No! I hate you. Christians are poop-poop heads.

The absolutist: Let us sit down, reason together.

The relativist: No! Shut up! I'm right, you're wrong. Shut up! I hate you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following.

Inevitable: No!

You never offered anything supportive of the existence of any of the gawds.

Your tedious cutting and pasting is a laughable joke.

Why do you say that?

No! Shut up! I hate you!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: No! I'm not telling you!

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.

Oh, I forgot. Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars. Inevitable asked no such thing. Looked at no such thing. Considered nothing. Thought about nothing. Understood nothing. Contributed nothing. Didn't even try. Bitch. Moan. Gossip. That's all he did.

 

[G.T.]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: No! I'm not telling you!

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.

Oh, I forgot. Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars. Inevitable asked no such thing. Looked at no such thing. Considered nothing. Thought about nothing. Understood nothing. Contributed nothing. Didn't even try. Bitch. Moan. Gossip. That's all he did.

You're right, you are a pathological liar.

can i not quote inevitable asking that very thing, right now, and make you look like a gigantic douchebag for saying he "asked no such thing?"

Sure I can. I should. Hell, I might. I'm going to give it some thought. Let you grovel, mix it up a little bit.


Oh wait, nevermind. I dont even need to. You admitted it yourself already. Wow you're a schlub.

md rawlings aka "blue moon":

"This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?"​

 

[G.T.]

"god created knowledge"

*not a given
*not an axiom

TAG:

god created knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore, god exists!

Utterly childish, asinine use of reasoning. Circular, proves nothing.

 

[Hollie]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following.

Inevitable: No!

You never offered anything supportive of the existence of any of the gawds.

Your tedious cutting and pasting is a laughable joke.

Why do you say that?

No! Shut up! I hate you!

A classic Rawling'ism. Pointless, inane and juvenile.

 

[Hollie]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: No! I'm not telling you!

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.

Oh, I forgot. Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars. Inevitable asked no such thing. Looked at no such thing. Considered nothing. Thought about nothing. Understood nothing. Contributed nothing. Didn't even try. Bitch. Moan. Gossip. That's all he did.

The ranting of the religiously insane.

 

[BreezeWood]

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

Like BreezeWood, who did nothing but preach, never answering a single question asked of him about what he was trying to say.

What does this mean, BreezeWood?

No! I hate you. Christians are poop-poop heads.

The absolutist: Let us sit down, reason together.

The relativist: No! Shut up! I'm right, you're wrong. Shut up! I hate you.

.
^ .not a feather of truth ...

"I am the way and the truth and the life - No one comes to the Father except through me".

interestingly, the above quote is a certain summation of the two religious zealots - and their demonic, repressive religious dogmatism ... hook line and sinker.

grow up boys ...

.