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

[Inevitable]

"In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."

He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.

He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?

You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.

These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.

So now 2 + 2 = 15?

Keep digging that hole, son.

"In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."

He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.

He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?

You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.

These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.

So now 2 + 2 = 15?

Keep digging that hole, son.

"In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."

He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.

He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?

You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.

These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.

So now 2 + 2 = 15?

Keep digging that hole, son.

His reply was utterly stupid. It had nothing to do with my post. Like I said mock these idiots. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who is lacking the qualifying adjective.

 

[Inevitable]

MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.

We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.

I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.

You're the feral animal, who talked at a person who was talking to you. You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object. You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants. You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.

No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
as is anyone else.

I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
ie. less than human, so what do you call that?

The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.

Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."

How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.

Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.

Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
Let's try to make this come out right.

I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.

Thanks.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-

He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.

Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.

Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.

 

[BreezeWood]

if you are praying, you are not living.

.

RE: "if you are praying, you are not living."
^ ??? ^

Dear BreezeWood:
This is like saying if you are talking you are not thinking.
maybe that's true for some people,
but others can talk and think at the same time.

I have a friend whose calling in life IS to pray for healing for others,
so that IS her gift in life, l like how some people play music as their gift.

Now BreezeWood you could say that if a golf player is busy practicing or playing on the field,
or a Cellist is in rehearsal or in the middle of a performance on stage,
sure, those people are not out with their family and friends "living their lives."

But their calling as musicians IS part of their life.
For some it is their HIGHER calling and the love of their life.

How can you say that isn't living. That way of sharing isn't part of their PURPOSE in life?

How can you assume, without ever meeting my friend,
or other spiritual healing prayer teachers and practitioners who help people
with HEALING that saves their minds, their lives, their relations health and sanity
through PRAYER for forgiveness and healing and counseling them through their process
of spiritual recovery and/or growth.

How can you assume that none of that is living?
They are SAVING lives, do you have any concept of that gift?

If not, why are you stating so as if it is FACT?
If you are Buddhist, where is this assumption of absolute knowledge of truth coming from?

Seems you are making wild leaps in logic and assumptions,
very attached to your opinion so much that you exclude and override
the lives and spiritual callings of other people who SHARE THE GIFT OF LIFE through prayer.

I question if you even know what you are talking about?
Where did you get that prayer was not a part of life
and completely disregard the use of prayer that has SAVED lives.

Why did you leave this out unless you were ignorant and making assumptions
of things you have no knowledge of?

??? X ???
This does not sound like the BreezeWood I know to be questioning the absolutes
as missing the bigger picture, for you to do the same thing is very strange, are you sure?

Am I misunderstanding what you mean?

I would guess because the fallacy of the bible prevents me from "reading" that book but that there is no instance where Jesus is in a state of prayer -

the Triumph of Good over Evil can not be prayed into existence.

you are chasing you tail Emily, not life.

.

 

[orogenicman]

Liberal? You? Bhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

I would say that you've gone insane, but that would be an insult to insane people everywhere. No sir, I will not shut up. That you actually believe you have won some kind of debate here is pathetic, to say the least. Grow up already.

I've found that people such as M. Pompous Rawling who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.

He had an argument? News to me. All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults. Oh, that argument. If that is all he can win, he can have it. Where do these people come from?

orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya! I got blisters on my fingers.

No there isn't because there aren't millions of different kinds of biological precursors. And the only blisters I see are the ones rotting your brain. I can,t do anything for you, but you do have my sympathy.

So why did you say there were millions of different kinds earlier?

Oh, that's right! I remember now. You were lying like a snake in the grass, implying that I was saying something I couldn't have possibly meant, pretending to understand something you don't, and like all liars only made yourself look like an ass.

Given that there are only four major groups of organic compounds in biology, and that nature is known to produce only five of the foundationally discrete monomers/precursors of life's compounds via the self-ordering properties of chemistry: only a dope or a liar would have failed to understand that "a relatively paltry number of biological molecules" found in space debris refers to the number of KINDS, not the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, combined with the countless number of organic compounds, given the fact of the countless number of space debris carrying such molecules in this vast universe!

Oh, and by the way, since you were really talking about the sheer number: you can't even get that right. Millions in terms of the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, did you say? Given that a single meteorite might contain that many alone, try trillions upon trillions upon trillions! Only God knows the count on that score, you ignoramus.

Oh, and that reminds me to add another question to the 24.

Note that #18 is a new question below.

Idiot. Nowhere in this conversation or any other did I say that there were millions of different biological precursors. I'd say that you've lost your mind, but it is clear that you've never had one.

 

[orogenicman]

MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.

We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.

I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.

You're the feral animal, who talked at a person who was talking to you. You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object. You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants. You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.

No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
as is anyone else.

I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
ie. less than human, so what do you call that?

The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.

Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."

How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.

Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.

Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
Let's try to make this come out right.

I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.

Thanks.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-

He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.

Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.

Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.

Assclown would be a step up for MD.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I've found that people such as M. Pompous Rawling who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.

He had an argument? News to me. All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults. Oh, that argument. If that is all he can win, he can have it. Where do these people come from?

orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya! I got blisters on my fingers.

No there isn't because there aren't millions of different kinds of biological precursors. And the only blisters I see are the ones rotting your brain. I can,t do anything for you, but you do have my sympathy.

So why did you say there were millions of different kinds earlier?

Oh, that's right! I remember now. You were lying like a snake in the grass, implying that I was saying something I couldn't have possibly meant, pretending to understand something you don't, and like all liars only made yourself look like an ass.

Given that there are only four major groups of organic compounds in biology, and that nature is known to produce only five of the foundationally discrete monomers/precursors of life's compounds via the self-ordering properties of chemistry: only a dope or a liar would have failed to understand that "a relatively paltry number of biological molecules" found in space debris refers to the number of KINDS, not the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, combined with the countless number of organic compounds, given the fact of the countless number of space debris carrying such molecules in this vast universe!

Oh, and by the way, since you were really talking about the sheer number: you can't even get that right. Millions in terms of the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, did you say? Given that a single meteorite might contain that many alone, try trillions upon trillions upon trillions! Only God knows the count on that score, you ignoramus.

Oh, and that reminds me to add another question to the 24.

Note that #18 is a new question below.

Idiot. Nowhere in this conversation or any other did I say that there were millions of different biological precursors. I'd say that you've lost your mind, but it is clear that you've never had one.

Liar. That's exactly what you implied. Have some milk and cookies.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Assclown would be a step up for MD.

It would be a step down for you. I only had you at lying idiot or fool Ass clown implies utter retard. But then maybe you're right. Perhaps ass clown is just the ticket for you, as anyone can see that applying the term ass clown to my obvious brilliance is . . . well . . . utterly retarded.

 

[orogenicman]

He had an argument? News to me. All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults. Oh, that argument. If that is all he can win, he can have it. Where do these people come from?

orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya! I got blisters on my fingers.

No there isn't because there aren't millions of different kinds of biological precursors. And the only blisters I see are the ones rotting your brain. I can,t do anything for you, but you do have my sympathy.

So why did you say there were millions of different kinds earlier?

Oh, that's right! I remember now. You were lying like a snake in the grass, implying that I was saying something I couldn't have possibly meant, pretending to understand something you don't, and like all liars only made yourself look like an ass.

Given that there are only four major groups of organic compounds in biology, and that nature is known to produce only five of the foundationally discrete monomers/precursors of life's compounds via the self-ordering properties of chemistry: only a dope or a liar would have failed to understand that "a relatively paltry number of biological molecules" found in space debris refers to the number of KINDS, not the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, combined with the countless number of organic compounds, given the fact of the countless number of space debris carrying such molecules in this vast universe!

Oh, and by the way, since you were really talking about the sheer number: you can't even get that right. Millions in terms of the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, did you say? Given that a single meteorite might contain that many alone, try trillions upon trillions upon trillions! Only God knows the count on that score, you ignoramus.

Oh, and that reminds me to add another question to the 24.

Note that #18 is a new question below.

Idiot. Nowhere in this conversation or any other did I say that there were millions of different biological precursors. I'd say that you've lost your mind, but it is clear that you've never had one.

Liar. That's exactly what you implied. Have some milk and cookies.

Okay, assclown, link to the post where I made such a statement. You can't because I never made it. You're the liar, and it's not the first time someone has caught you in the act. Do us all a favor, sonny and give the keyboard back to your mommy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-

He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.

Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.

Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.

He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof!


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 and stuff 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'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, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. Giggle I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

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. 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 kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is People. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. 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 and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

 

[orogenicman]

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-

He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.

Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.

Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.

He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof!


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 and stuff 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'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, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. Giggle I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

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. 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 kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is People. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. 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 and the law of the excluded middle): [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.[/QUOTE']http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/[/URL].

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
—Proverbs 6:16–19

You shall not spread a false report.
— Exodus 23:1-2

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, assclown, link to the post where I made such a statement. You can't because I never made it. You're the liar, and it's not the first time someone has caught you in the act. Do us all a favor, sonny and give the keyboard back to your mommy.

Look, ass clown, I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under controlled, simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or meteoric-calcified states, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in meteoric-calcified forms or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are not the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I'm thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented.

Check?

 

[Hollie]

Assclown would be a step up for MD.

It would be a step down for you. I only had you at lying idiot or fool Ass clown implies utter retard. But then maybe you're right. Perhaps ass clown is just the ticket for you, as anyone can see that applying the term ass clown to my obvious brilliance is . . . well . . . utterly retarded.

Okay, assclown, link to the post where I made such a statement. You can't because I never made it. You're the liar, and it's not the first time someone has caught you in the act. Do us all a favor, sonny and give the keyboard back to your mommy.

Look, ass clown, I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under controlled, simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or meteoric-calcified states, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward it.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in meteoric-calcified forms or in a weak, nonspecific bond with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to get have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base naturally occur in living cells and outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are not the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either. Intelligence.

That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I'm thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, mostly self-taught, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature. Intelligence.

That's what we're proving today.

Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented.

Check?

You certainly are an amateur. That's why you should best avoid discussions regarding science principles where your bumbling incompetence becomes so obvious.


Check?

 

[Hollie]

The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ drenched with pointless Rawling'isms that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-

He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.

Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.

Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.

He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof!


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 and stuff 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'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, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. Giggle I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

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. 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 kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is People. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. 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 and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
—Proverbs 6:16–19

You shall not spread a false report.
— Exodus 23:1-2

You're not my brothers, and you're not friends of God. The axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin stand. They have not been refuted by anyone. They cannot be refuted.

"I AM!" declares the Lord in the minds of mankind and in the things that were created beyond them.

Inevitable is a liar and a fool.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ drenched with pointless Rawling'isms that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.

You are a liar. The axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin stand. They have not been refuted by anyone. They cannot be refuted.

 

[Hollie]

The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ drenched with pointless Rawling'isms that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.

You are a liar. The axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin stand. They have not been refuted by anyone. They cannot be refuted.

There are no axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

His reply was utterly stupid. It had nothing to do with my post. Like I said mock these idiots. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who is lacking the qualifying adjective.

"His reply is stupid. Blah blah blah. @#$$%^$#%#! Blah blah blah."

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 and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There are no axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Blah blah blah. @#$$%^$#%#! Blah blah blah."



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 and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

 

[Hollie]

There are no axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Blah blah blah. @#$$%^$#%#! Blah blah blah."



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 and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ drenched with pointless Rawling'isms that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.

 

[Hollie]

There are no axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Blah blah blah. @#$$%^$#%#! Blah blah blah."



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 and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ have been so thoroughly discredited, what would you choose to continuing promoting that fraud?