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

[Boss]

Most people here, even M.D. and Boss have some awareness of where they are talking past people.

You know Emily, I am getting a little tired of you constantly lumping me in with MD and pretending we are both doing the same thing here. MD made an argument and I agreed with his argument but pointed out why I didn't believe his argument was bulletproof. He then began a vicious campaign of attack on me, both personally and intellectually, and that attack has continued on and on. I have refrained from attacking him or anyone else for their beliefs, but I have responded to his stubborn insistence that his points are unassailable and his argument is empirical.

Now you are entitled to your own opinion but you are pissing me off by comparing me (constantly) with MD. We're simply NOT doing the same thing here, I am NOT talking past anyone. If something I've said has gone past you, please let me know and I will explain it in greater detail. MD and Justin deserve to be lumped together, as they have consistently been on the same page, using the same tactics of debate, making the same arguments over and over, and hurling ad hominem insults left and right.

Don't lump me in with MD, the only reason there is dialogue happening between us is because I refuse to let the punk get away with telling me I am wrong in my beliefs and he is right in his. I don't need any lessons in diplomacy or wise words on how to reach consensus. You need to be preaching that to MD and Justin, not me.

 

[G.T.]

Boss =\= m.d. in terms of intellectual honesty, humility, humor or good faith.

For the record, people of the Jury.

 

[Boss]

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

Still the most profound revelation of this entire thread!

 

[G.T.]

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

Still the most profound revelation of this entire thread!

Is that her on there? I haven't opened the file

 

[Boss]

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

Still the most profound revelation of this entire thread!

Is that her on there? I haven't opened the file

She said it was. Pretty interesting, but that damn song has been stuck in my head for days now! lol

 

[emilynghiem]

Most people here, even M.D. and Boss have some awareness of where they are talking past people.

You know Emily, I am getting a little tired of you constantly lumping me in with MD and pretending we are both doing the same thing here. MD made an argument and I agreed with his argument but pointed out why I didn't believe his argument was bulletproof. He then began a vicious campaign of attack on me, both personally and intellectually, and that attack has continued on and on. I have refrained from attacking him or anyone else for their beliefs, but I have responded to his stubborn insistence that his points are unassailable and his argument is empirical.

Now you are entitled to your own opinion but you are pissing me off by comparing me (constantly) with MD. We're simply NOT doing the same thing here, I am NOT talking past anyone. If something I've said has gone past you, please let me know and I will explain it in greater detail. MD and Justin deserve to be lumped together, as they have consistently been on the same page, using the same tactics of debate, making the same arguments over and over, and hurling ad hominem insults left and right.

Don't lump me in with MD, the only reason there is dialogue happening between us is because I refuse to let the punk get away with telling me I am wrong in my beliefs and he is right in his. I don't need any lessons in diplomacy or wise words on how to reach consensus. You need to be preaching that to MD and Justin, not me.

No, the only comparison I made is that you are not forgiving each other but being negative towards each other.
BreezeWood is being negative and rejecting not accepting of M.D.
Hollie is being negative and rejecting and not accepting of M.D.

My point is if we are going to unpeel those layers of rejection that M.D. hides behind
we cannot be piling on more layers of the same.

That's more and more layers to forgive and undo.

Hollie keeps posting the same things also: telling M.D. to quit copying and pasting, quit saying the same things.
Telling him the same thing isn't working.
But she can't help it because she doesn't know there is a solution
so cannot steer and redirect M.D. there without such a concept of where he does need to expand his focus.

I have a sense of that, but can only guess at it, offer ideas and try to see what works.

Boss maybe the reason I focus on you
is that you have a better chance of coming up with a way to explain to M.D.
what can be done differently instead of criticizing the same thing over and over
and wonder why M.D. keeps insisting the same things over and over.

If we want different answers out of M.D.
we have to ask different questions how to get there.

Do you agree that you and Hollie keep saying no no no
and it's not specific enough to change how M.D. responds.

Can we try different things?
My last post was asking both M.D. and Justin Davis
what was THEIR process for coming to an understanding of God?
the meaning of Jesus Christianity and the Bible?

Boss, would you like to start first?
If you can explain how you came to your understanding,
and if it was or was not through discussion of TAG points,
maybe we can explain why this TAG isn't working.

It seems to me that even M.D. and Justin came to their
understanding FIRST, and THEN they summarized it afterwards using TAG.

So it is some kind of process AFTER understanding
but it is not necessarily appropriate for explaining BEFORE people reach an understanding.

Boss should we just come out and ASK
M.D. and Justin that if they had ever been in a state of not understanding God in the past,
wouldn't they not understand TAG either. And it's only because they already understand God
that it makes sense to them.

So one group is objecting because they are not starting in that same place, but maybe
they are where people like Justin or M.D. were BEFORE they understood what God means
and BEFORE they would ever have understood TAG either!

And another group is objecting because we see this gap,
and/or can explain it logistically where the leap is coming from.

Let me know if you have ideas.

If you are working to RESOLVE the issue then you would be different.

If you are just rejecting and trying to prove the other wrong, that is where I'm saying this is getting mutually stuck.
Just trying to prove the other is wrong instead of trying to correct where the disconnects are happening
and agree on a better way!

Can you help explain this to M.D. and/or Justin?
I think Justin may get it before M.D. who is so caught up on this track he's on,
he's not looking at the process around it. But maybe Justin can see both,
see both what M.D. is focused on and see the paths and process as well that doesn't negate it
but needs to be taken into account when working with different people and their own paths and process.

Boss I don't think Hollie is a process person.
Can you see both? Can you see both the end result that M.D. is trying to get to, an agreement on God,
and can you see where his process and everyone else can come to some understanding?

I am just posting suggestions, and seeing if anything rings a bell, helps come up with insights
so we can make a connection somewhere between MD thought process and everyone else.

I can't find how to connect with BreezeWood either, so I am guessing at that
and throwing feelers out, trying to find where we are missing each other or where we might connect.

You BreezeWood and M.D. all seem in the business of just saying
"no you are wrong" to each other and not trying to find ways to fix it.

of all these people, Boss, I think you can come up with creative
new angles to try to make a better connection with BW and MD.
They don't seem to see how all these different ways are part of a process.

BW rejects the Christian God ABSOLUTELY and now it looks like prayer is thrown in as well.
MD rejects relative views and even the process of asking and questioning is "refuting God".

How can we build a process around that include these people and their paths
to show how it works?

 

[emilynghiem]

You know, GT, I tried that weird 2 + 2 = 15 thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing. That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4! It's the weirdest thing. I think you might be off after all. Got calculator?

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.

G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
and we agree Nature exists?

So if you define God to be Nature,
then sure God exists because it means Nature.

Can we be okay with that?

or God = Life
or God = Truth
or God = Love

if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.

Are you okay with that?

No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.

God is not my eyelashes.

I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)

Are you okay with equating God with Nature,
or God with Universal laws of science.

what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
Life?
Laws of nature? the universe?

How would you describe the absolute default?
And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?

of course eyelashes is not that level...

No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.

"All powerful creator."

And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.


If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.

P.S. if you are equating God with something you don't believe in, but what other people do,
that is not God. So you are equating God with something false that doesn't exist,
when God means something universally true that does.

Where do these systems intersect?

What in your system is the equivalent of what God means in other people's system.

G.T. you cannot just take a term out of one system and plant it in another. That is not the same thing.

You have to consider the context.

An extreme example is what if your language is German and everyone else you are citing speak English.
The word "gift" in German can mean "poison".

So just because everyone else is running using "gift" to mean 'present'
doesn't mean that in your system of speaking German, you can use it "gift' to mean the same thing.

You would have to translate your entire system into the English equivalents
to use the same words the same way.

If you are keeping your German context, you might have to TRANSLATE the concept
behind the English word GIFT and find out what is the equivalent in German of saying that,
not just copying everyone else.

One exchange student from Germany cracked up everyone in class
by asking the teacher for a RUBBER when he meant an ERASER.

Of course he had no idea that everyone was thinking of Condoms.

We need to align by concepts, and if this concept doesn't exist in your world,
then it has to align with something else. You can't just insert something
that doesn't exist into your world and expect to communicate.

The common factors I see are either
* you believe in some kind of Truth or Science that is common standard for people by Nature
* you have some sense of cause and effect, Law and order or Justice in life, some rules that work for human relations
to be civil and peaceful
* there is some system by "Conscience" that people can agree what we consent to or what we don't,
and we can use that system of binary logic (yes or no) to work out issues and get along in life

If we can agree on some level like that, that's enough to align our concepts.

 

[G.T.]

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.

G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
and we agree Nature exists?

So if you define God to be Nature,
then sure God exists because it means Nature.

Can we be okay with that?

or God = Life
or God = Truth
or God = Love

if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.

Are you okay with that?

No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.

God is not my eyelashes.

I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)

Are you okay with equating God with Nature,
or God with Universal laws of science.

what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
Life?
Laws of nature? the universe?

How would you describe the absolute default?
And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?

of course eyelashes is not that level...

No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.

"All powerful creator."

And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.


If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.

P.S. if you are equating God with something you don't believe in, but what other people do,
that is not God. So you are equating God with something false that doesn't exist,
when God means something universally true that does.

Where do these systems intersect?

What in your system is the equivalent of what God means in other people's system.

G.T. you cannot just take a term out of one system and plant it in another. That is not the same thing.

You have to consider the context.

An extreme example is what if your language is German and everyone else you are citing speak English.
The word "gift" in German can mean "poison".

So just because everyone else is running using "gift" to mean 'present'
doesn't mean that in your system of speaking German, you can use it "gift' to mean the same thing.

You would have to translate your entire system into the English equivalents
to use the same words the same way.

If you are keeping your German context, you might have to TRANSLATE the concept
behind the English word GIFT and find out what is the equivalent in German of saying that,
not just copying everyone else.

One exchange student from Germany cracked up everyone in class
by asking the teacher for a RUBBER when he meant an ERASER.

Of course he had no idea that everyone was thinking of Condoms.

We need to align by concepts, and if this concept doesn't exist in your world,
then it has to align with something else. You can't just insert something
that doesn't exist into your world and expect to communicate.

The common factors I see are either
* you believe in some kind of Truth or Science that is common standard for people by Nature
* you have some sense of cause and effect, Law and order or Justice in life, some rules that work for human relations
to be civil and peaceful
* there is some system by "Conscience" that people can agree what we consent to or what we don't,
and we can use that system of binary logic (yes or no) to work out issues and get along in life

If we can agree on some level like that, that's enough to align our concepts.

You said "So you are equating God with something false that doesn't exist,
when God means something universally true that does."

I disagree. I am equating god with what humans have meant when they refer to god (or gods) since we've HAD language.

What I'm not into, is defining god INTO existence, which is what it seems you're asking me to do.

If i believe that nature exists, does that mean that i think nature is god? no.
If i believe that the universe exists, does that mean that i think the universe is god? no.

When im debating if god exists or not, I'm talking about a given overall understanding of what god "generally" refers to, and the specifics may vary but the general idea doesn't.

god means eternal creator or all powerful being to most people.

im not into changing that in order to define him into something that exists and "poof!" thus god exists!

that is asinine to me, childish almost.

 

[emilynghiem]

I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.

Then you are clearly not adequately comprehending or interpreting what I post. Emily, go back and re-read where MD made his original presentation of the 5 Things, (later amended to 7 Things) and his argument for TAG. You will find that I never disagreed with his argument or rejected it's possibility, in fact, I praised the argument and commended him for presenting a valid syllogistic argument, per the thread challenge. My only point of contention with any of this has been that human knowledge is not infallible and we are not omniscient. Therefore, the possibility always exists that we are wrong, that our "logic and logical thinking" are incorrect, and that we can never KNOW truth, we can only believe we know truth. MD viewed my observation as a personal threat to his ideas and began a campaign of attacks on me, both personally and intellectually.

Now you are free to have your opinion, but I don't see anything equal about the posting styles or tactics of myself and MD. I've not disrespected anyone's intelligence here, unless you can say that my not granting human intelligence as beyond reproach would qualify. I simply can't allow that MD is somehow immortally omniscient for the sake of "getting along" here. If you wish to concede that in order to achieve some greater objective, that's your prerogative.

Hi Boss I'm trying to backtrack and find out where I missed your points or you misunderstood mine.

I found this one.

If you agree with M.D. you need to keep reminding him of this.
Say it at the beginning of each post if necessary, that you agree the points on God are true,
but it is the way he is setting it up and approaching it that is causing problems.

I have to keep posting to Justin and M.D. also that I have no problem agreeing with points
but the conflicts are with the presentation and process around it.

I am not being specific enough to correct it, so they aren't getting it.
Can you help?

If they think we are rejecting them, they can't tell the difference and keep saying weird things back.
Sorry Boss there was one more msg I saw that showed me where I wasn't communicating clearly
with you what I meant. I will try to find that too.

Keep posting which points you agree on whenever you point out what you disagree on.
I think that will help! Thanks Boss! Sorry for the missed communications here.

 

[emilynghiem]

If i believe that nature exists, does that mean that i think nature is god? no.
If i believe that the universe exists, does that mean that i think the universe is god? no.

^ No, but they are personifying universe and nature as God, not you.
that is their words for it in their language.

That is my whole point, you don't need to use their language which stays on their side of the fence.

You just keep using your terms for Nature or Universe that are the equivalent for you.

If you speak English and your word for cat is cat, you keep using cat.
Let the other person call it gato or chat or whatever.

You stick to yours and just KNOW it is the same as what they are calling whatever on their side.
There need not be any offense taken if you use the secular neutral terms.

Just know it is the same. If they have a problem don't take on their problem.
You know you mean the same thing, the "universal laws of nature" regardless how this is portrayed.

My mother who is Buddhist was able to calm down a friend of mine
who finally decided she was naturally wise, directly from God and didn't need the Bible or
the same understanding of God. She had the wisdom and that was the point. So he calmed down about it.

My friend Olivia first questioned someone who is atheist, but saw by his nature
he was one in spirit. so she accepted God made him that way. Because he was okay with it.
We could still agree and work together. and it was only when the other Christians freaked out they had a problem.
But the ones who didn't have a problem worked and walked together as neighbors in Christ just fine, without issue.

 

[emilynghiem]

youre a sad little little man

The Betty Boop Chronicles

People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.

The bottom line: the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of the God axiom and the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC nature of the God axiom!

See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue is not whether or not this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is a FACT. It is a LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Go debate the FACT of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel. Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.



1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

Yes or no?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?



That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

The FACT of the existence of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, or the FACT of the nature of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is not controversial or open to debate!

And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.

It is I who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.

Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw; more at, the fact that so many of you aligned yourselves with the Pollyannaish banalities of Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.

Who but uneducable imbeciles would give this snot-nosed punk, this utter fool, anything more than contempt or the back of his hand?

What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature? That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really ever even grasped the reality of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.

Dear M.D. Rawlings
1. How did you come to your understanding of God?
2. Was it through any of this process you post ^ above, or did you come to terms by life experience or other ways?
Can you please share because I think that would be very helpful to understand the larger context or process.
Especially if that's what worked for you!
3. Were you ever in a state of questioning and not understanding what other people meant by God?
Can you explain what changed your mind?
4. If so, while you were in that state, how would you have responded to these points you post.
5. If you can put yourself in that mindset, how would you explain it.

Thanks

P.S. I just realized again, if you, me Boss, Justin all came to our recognition of the meaning of God as true by DIFFERENT paths in life, what makes you think that only one way is going to explain it or summarize it for all people. Don't you think it would be "slightly different" for each person, just like you, me Justin, Boss etc. all have a slightly different angle on our connection of God.

I respect your process MD though it seems this TAG came LATER in the process toward the END. So I question why you don't have the same consideration of others, if you didn't start your process using TAG but didn't come to this understanding until the end. You want others to accept and work with this process around your focus on TAG as you present it, what about everyone else's process, should theirs be included and respected equally as yours?

Do you even count the journey of yourself and others as important at all?

Math and science are more than just getting the right answer in the back of the book,
it's about applying it to SOLVE problems to apply the PROCESS in order to build.

Just wondering where you are in this process, and if you see the bigger process around it yet.
Do you see how your process and those of others follows stages, and are you respecting those stages or not.

 

[G.T.]

If i believe that nature exists, does that mean that i think nature is god? no.
If i believe that the universe exists, does that mean that i think the universe is god? no.

^ No, but they are personifying universe and nature as God, not you.
that is their words for it in their language.

That is my whole point, you don't need to use their language which stays on their side of the fence.

You just keep using your terms for Nature or Universe that are the equivalent for you.

If you speak English and your word for cat is cat, you keep using cat.
Let the other person call it gato or chat or whatever.

You stick to yours and just KNOW it is the same as what they are calling whatever on their side.
There need not be any offense taken if you use the secular neutral terms.

Just know it is the same. If they have a problem don't take on their problem.
You know you mean the same thing, the "universal laws of nature" regardless how this is portrayed.

My mother who is Buddhist was able to calm down a friend of mine
who finally decided she was naturally wise, directly from God and didn't need the Bible or
the same understanding of God. She had the wisdom and that was the point. So he calmed down about it.

My friend Olivia first questioned someone who is atheist, but saw by his nature
he was one in spirit. so she accepted God made him that way. Because he was okay with it.
We could still agree and work together. and it was only when the other Christians freaked out they had a problem.
But the ones who didn't have a problem worked and walked together as neighbors in Christ just fine, without issue.

You make no sense.

If everyone means something different when they refer to god, then nobody is "on the same page" for proving if "god" exists because "god" isnt even the same thing to begin with and the conversation is meaningless.

in a conversation about frogs, im not proving that elephants exist or not.

in a conversation about the creator of the universe, im not proving that nature exists.

if everyone is talking about something different, theres no conversation to be had. waste of time.

 

[emilynghiem]

in a conversation about the creator of the universe, im not proving that nature exists.

if everyone is talking about something different, theres no conversation to be had. waste of time.

Hi G.T.
1. the point is we can AGREE on the laws of nature or universal laws without arguing if there is a creator or not.
We focus on the theme we DO share in common.

2. by process of elimination, we drop all the side points that people don't agree on.
and just stick to the points that are common across the board.

We "weed out" the parts where people are talking about different things
and just stick to the part we agree we meant the same things.

It's very little that's left, but those are the key points anyway.
We're looking for the tiny diamonds hidden in the caves of coal.
it's the diamonds that are valuable, priceless not the tons and tons of rock in our way.


Another example: If Jesus means Justice, we can talk about Justice.
We don't need to argue if the crucifixion was history or symbolic or spiritual or what.
We can agree there is a process of "restoring justice and peace," and work out those
steps regardless of symbolism. We stick to where we agree, and we drop the places
where we are going all over the place not agreeing or not talking about the same things.

If we think something is true and just, we agree on that point.
If we don't agree, we drop that one. And by process of elimination, trial and error,
we form a consensus based on where we agree and just stick to those points.
We form agreements and even policies or contracts based on consent of the parties.
And forget everything else where we disagree that won't get us anywhere.

 

[G.T.]

I'm not interested in beliefs.

I'm interested in someone proving something which is unproven.

And IMO, unprovABLE

beliefs regarding our origins are not the same thing as FACTS about our origins.

So I can share my 'beliefs' all day long, but that doesn't raise the bar one iota towards the overall mission statement: prove god exists, if you can.

The inability of anyone to do so is not a miscommunication, Emily. Its because the feat is simply NOT POSSIBLE.

rational and humble people admit this
Arrogant people pretend.

I've no sympathy for pretenders. Their ego is their biggest enemy. They need to face that sooner or later if they'd ever wish to self actualize.

 

[G.T.]

TAG is an absurdity.
'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not interested in beliefs.

I'm interested in someone proving something which is unproven.

And IMO, unprovABLE

beliefs regarding our origins are not the same thing as FACTS about our origins.

So I can share my 'beliefs' all day long, but that doesn't raise the bar one iota towards the overall mission statement: prove god exists, if you can.

The inability of anyone to do so is not a miscommunication, Emily. Its because the feat is simply NOT POSSIBLE.

rational and humble people admit this
Arrogant people pretend.

I've no sympathy for pretenders. Their ego is their biggest enemy. They need to face that sooner or later if they'd ever wish to self actualize.

Dear G.T.
The personal connection with God cannot be proven.
What we CAN prove are the universal laws we agree on.

If you keep pushing these people to prove their God, this sets both sides on the defensive and goes in circles.
That's the whole problem we should avoid.

I propose that we prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing
as something that CAN be shown consistent with science
and serves the same purposes as proving Jesus/God etc.

That can be done scientifically.
It has more practical benefits and it solves the issues causing the other conflicts as a result.

 

[emilynghiem]

TAG is an absurdity.
'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.

Yes, I believe the point is to work backwards.

I am guessing that M.D. did not arrive at this point until AFTER he went through his process
of reaching his understanding of God, and now he is working backwards:
presenting the conclusion, then when all the objections come up
going through the similar process of RESOLVING them all to reach an agreement at the end.

There is a bigger process AROUND TAG, and that process is universal, including all people,
but what M.D. doesn't get is that it is RELATIVE to each person and that's okay, too.

he is not okay with the idea that things can be relative and universal/absolutes too
and neither is Justin. So they are not done with their process either, and their objections
to how this "relative approach business can still lead to universal agreement:
are also coming up to be resolved equally!

BreezeWood also does not see how prayer or Christian God/beliefs can be part of a spiritual process
leading to the same higher place.

I think Boss can see the different sides, but is just frustrated with everyone and that's getting in the way. I am probably more at odds with how to talk with BreezeWood than with M.D. and Justin.

 

[G.T.]

I'm not interested in beliefs.

I'm interested in someone proving something which is unproven.

And IMO, unprovABLE

beliefs regarding our origins are not the same thing as FACTS about our origins.

So I can share my 'beliefs' all day long, but that doesn't raise the bar one iota towards the overall mission statement: prove god exists, if you can.

The inability of anyone to do so is not a miscommunication, Emily. Its because the feat is simply NOT POSSIBLE.

rational and humble people admit this
Arrogant people pretend.

I've no sympathy for pretenders. Their ego is their biggest enemy. They need to face that sooner or later if they'd ever wish to self actualize.

Dear G.T.
The personal connection with God cannot be proven.
What we CAN prove are the universal laws we agree on.

If you keep pushing these people to prove their God, this sets both sides on the defensive and goes in circles.
That's the whole problem we should avoid.

I propose that we prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing
as something that CAN be shown consistent with science
and serves the same purposes as proving Jesus/God etc.

That can be done scientifically.
It has more practical benefits and it solves the issues causing the other conflicts as a result.

I'm not pushing anyone to do anything.

They made a CLAIM that they've proven god.

An absurd claim, because the proof they've presented is a fallacy and doesn't prove god, it presupposes him.

Only a toddler could be so sophomoric, in judgement.

further, proving universal laws is not why i am here. i am here for a proof of or discussion thereof, of god.

establishing universal laws doesnt establish god.

ive looked into the whole spiritual healing thing, and its all hearsay. not proof. at best it can be shaken down to peculiar coincidence. at worst, its simply rational science we've yet to understand. until god comes in my face and says "hey!! its me!! i did this!!," the spiritual healing thing is NOT sufficient evidence for anyone serious about their discovery. attributing the healing to "god" is a CHOICE you make, it is not PROOF he did it.

 

[G.T.]

TAG is an absurdity.
'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.

Yes, I believe the point is to work backwards.

I am guessing that M.D. did not arrive at this point until AFTER he went through his process
of reaching his understanding of God, and now he is working backwards:
presenting the conclusion, then when all the objections come up
going through the similar process of RESOLVING them all to reach an agreement at the end.

There is a bigger process AROUND TAG, and that process is universal, including all people,
but what M.D. doesn't get is that it is RELATIVE to each person and that's okay, too.

he is not okay with the idea that things can be relative and universal/absolutes too
and neither is Justin. So they are not done with their process either, and their objections
to how this "relative approach business can still lead to universal agreement:
are also coming up to be resolved equally!

BreezeWood also does not see how prayer or Christian God/beliefs can be part of a spiritual process
leading to the same higher place.

it doesnt matter which way he worked, TAG doesnt work regardless because it claims to prove something unprovable.

hence faith.

 

[emilynghiem]

I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.

Then you are clearly not adequately comprehending or interpreting what I post. Emily, go back and re-read where MD made his original presentation of the 5 Things, (later amended to 7 Things) and his argument for TAG. You will find that I never disagreed with his argument or rejected it's possibility, in fact, I praised the argument and commended him for presenting a valid syllogistic argument, per the thread challenge. My only point of contention with any of this has been that human knowledge is not infallible and we are not omniscient. Therefore, the possibility always exists that we are wrong, that our "logic and logical thinking" are incorrect, and that we can never KNOW truth, we can only believe we know truth. MD viewed my observation as a personal threat to his ideas and began a campaign of attacks on me, both personally and intellectually.

Now you are free to have your opinion, but I don't see anything equal about the posting styles or tactics of myself and MD. I've not disrespected anyone's intelligence here, unless you can say that my not granting human intelligence as beyond reproach would qualify. I simply can't allow that MD is somehow immortally omniscient for the sake of "getting along" here. If you wish to concede that in order to achieve some greater objective, that's your prerogative.

Dear Boss: I thought there was another post where you thought I was calling your responses "venting"
What I was referring to was when you slammed Hollie in a derogatory way, and I understood you were venting.

I APPRECIATE your spelled out explanations and arguments and do NOT consider that venting but proper response.

Likewise when M.D. spells out his points, he is sticking to the concepts and I appreciate that, too.

What I meant was when both of you had made PERSONAL remarks about the PEOPLE posting and not the content.

Sorry this wasn't clear.

Boss to be fair I was trying to point out that in the past I had equally asked you not to slam Hollie this way;
and I wasn't just picking on M.D. but asking others not to do that either!

Clearly you are one of the few trying to post clear spelled out objections
and Hollie was trying to also.

I didn't agree with M.D. mocking those points she listed because that's better than just calling names!

We need to reward people for spelling it out, and not slam them for it.

Boss : I'm sorry I didn't come out and SAY that I appreciate your posts (ie. that are spelled out and NOT venting)
because I thought you already knew this was the correct way to respond and didn't need to be commended on that.
I tried to THANK your msgs when you did spell things out and thought that was enough.