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

[G.T.]

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that... or... maybe you're right, I don't know. Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.

I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.

That's where simple minds get confused.

Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that... or... maybe you're right, I don't know. Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.

Ironic coming from the poster who vehemently denigrates and insults Atheists whenever they expose his baseless babbling BS.

 

[Boss]

Boss Its not my view that your evidence is anecdotal, its that your evidence meets the literal definition of anecdotal.

Same with the situation you described with my daughter. If that had occurred, a scientific mind - a sound & reasonable mind- wouldn't automatically attribute the miracle to any particular god or entity at all. That mind would hunt for the reason or explanation for the miracle and absent finding one in an incontrovertible way? The answer is a shoulder shrug and 'I don't know.'

I already posted also why the appeal to majority you've used doesn't work, and you skipped right over that, so you can address Post #1465 before you continue the charade. 'Its true' is not the only plausible explanation for humans acting spiritually en masse. An open mind sees many other possibilities. It is the closed mind that says 'well! Must be true, then!'

No, there's plenty of other reasons.

The reason I'm being disagreeable with you or anyone at all, and the reason I've EVER been..........is its based on reciprocation. I never begin being the asshole. I'm cordial to anyone who is cordial. Its kinda natural. Its also natural to be a dick to dicks.

Why can't you answer my question about your daughter? I wasn't asking about a miracle, I said the doctors have told you that she needs a miracle to live. What are you going to do in that situation? Are you going to tell me that you would absolutely refuse to go to the chapel and get on your knees and beg God to save your kid? Yes... I guess that would be a pointless waste of your time when you could be picking out a casket and such, huh? Hey... just trying to jar you into THINKING past your vehement hatred of religion here.

The ONLY thing that I have surmised "must be true then" is that humans have a fundamental and intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self. I have intentionally left the definition of that open for interpretation because WHAT God is, is NOT the argument. Humans spiritually connect to something and this is a fundamental human behavioral attribute. It always has been, always will be.

 

[Justin Davis]

I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.

Again proving how fucking dumb you are.

I argued that no human has proof.

I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.

Prove God to me ! Prove God to me! That's all I keep hearing from you morons! It's like you are completely unaware that no one will ever be able to "prove" anything to you when your mind is going to reject the evidence.

Since God is spiritual, the evidence that proves God is also spiritual. You reject the spiritual, so you can't evaluate the evidence. Now that's not the fault of the evidence or God, or any of us who know God. We can't make spiritual evidence turn into physical evidence you'll accept. We can't turn God into a physical entity so we can prove God exists to you. So what do you want us to do?

The only thing I can recommend is this... Turn your life over to God, believe in the power of God, pray to God and worship Him daily, ask for God's blessings and forgiveness. Devote yourself to following God and God's Word for the next 90 days. I guarantee you will find evidence for God. That's all I can tell you, if you want to find proof for God, that's what you need to do.

There is never going to be any physical evidence we can show you that will prove God to you. We've told you this, we've explained why that is, but you just keep ignorantly asking for the same thing over and over. It goes on for days, weeks, months... thousands and thousands of pages worth of yah-yah back and forth in multiple threads on multiple forums. You're not willing to accept the evidence or do what it takes to see the evidence for yourself, so there's nothing anyone can do.

God exists. Billions of people believe it and have all the evidence they need. You don't believe it because you refuse to accept the evidence or acknowledge it in any way. No one can help you but you.

They are liars. It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding. Even Q.W. is a liar. He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic. The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.

 

[G.T.]

They are liars. It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding. Even Q.W. is a liar. He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic. The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.

shaddapp, nobody cares that you dont know the difference between lies and disagreement.

continue to ride md's coat tails and cheerlead from the sidelines, you do better over there dude.

 

[Boss]

Ironic coming from the poster who vehemently denigrates and insults Atheists whenever they expose his baseless babbling BS.

Just in case you haven't picked up on it, I am no longer taking your troll bait. I understand you pride yourself in being the antagonist, but you'll need to find someone else to pull this shit on. Whenever you can formulate a coherent argument, we'll talk. Until then, you can pretty much go fuck yourself.

 

[Justin Davis]

Mmm Kay, neat post

What do you mean? You admitted the five things are true. I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another. Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that. You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5. So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them. You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying. That's just another lie. But you're right about Q.W.. Now he's the chief liar. He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......

I haven't lied about a damn thing.

His five whatever the fucks - don't prove god.

I am agnostic.

And tags first premise is empty.

The five whatever the fucks don't matter, to any of that. So uh, yea. Go bark up someone else's tree about being a liar asshole.

Lying to the trees now I see. Did you forget that I agree that God's existence cannot be proven in any ultimate sense by arguments or science? So what's your point? Seriously? What's your point? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You don't have one. So why are you tapping lies out over and over again about something we all know as if we didn't know it. You're a broken record. Are you stuck on brain freeze. What do the things you necessarily must believe to get up every morning tell you about the meaning of life? Got nothing, eh? How boring. You've got huge ideas in front you with huge implications and your conclusion is to lie to yourself. "Just is" "Just was." "My dog farted." "Where are my shoes?" What's Q.W.'s point when he lies about logic and science? What's his point? All that nutcase is saying in the end is that science can't address questions of ultimate importance, the existence of God. Whoop de do! la la la la. That's supposed to be something new? I can get more out of my piggy bank than that. Dogmatism, he says. Is that a song title for dull? Logic can prove anything, he says, expect his lies and the lies he tells to cover up those lies and the lies after that. Foxfrye's talking about persuading people. Persuade Liars? What kind of dummy tries to persuade liars? What's the point of Prachettford lying about definitions? That was a hoot. What did that liar get out of this thread? Reinforced lies that's what he got. Somebody just repeated one of Q.W.'s lies, one that reinforces disbelief . Q.W. should be proud, and Foxfyre encouraged that liar blindingly leading others to think he's open-minded, being straight, helping. But everything that comes out of his mouth was self-serving, false, faith-destroying lies. I'm the weirdo? You guys just sit around and lie to each other, pretend like ho hum ideas are big ideas.

Thou shalt not have an infinite God of unlimited possibilities.
Thou shalt not venture beyond just is.
Thou shalt go in circles forever about yawn.
Thou shalt have objective evidence, whatever that is.
Thou shalt not have any definition: objective evidence is objective evidence.
Thou shalt not have a universal principle of identity.
Thou shalt not have coherence in laws of thought with things that are two or more things at the same time.
Thou shalt split the nature of thy given thing and make it two different things. LOL!
Thou shalt talk gibberish about things one knows really nothing about.
Thou shalt lie like the devil, freely, happily and about everything.
Thou shalt not have the excluded middle in constructive logic. (So? And?)
Thou shalt not have any coherent So? or And? LOL!
Thou does not have a clue about So? or And?
Thou shalt not have a principle of identity, but a law of identity as thy proper term, except when, sometimes, well, what's the deal?
Thou shalt not have a universal synchronization of apprehension and phenomena; i.e., thou shalt not have science. LOL!
Thou shalt not have philosophy before science; i.e., thou shalt not have science. LOL!
Thou shalt not have an open mind.
Thou shalt not have green eggs and ham.

Did I miss anything?

Oh!

Thou shalt not have a kitchen sink.

Just say "no" to everything. Even theists on this board say "no" to everything and then fool themselves into believing that it's people like you and me who are saying "no" to everything. And I see why you mentioned Boss. Reading his posts is real seeing. He's got it. Boss is very wise.

 

[G.T.]

Boss Its not my view that your evidence is anecdotal, its that your evidence meets the literal definition of anecdotal.

Same with the situation you described with my daughter. If that had occurred, a scientific mind - a sound & reasonable mind- wouldn't automatically attribute the miracle to any particular god or entity at all. That mind would hunt for the reason or explanation for the miracle and absent finding one in an incontrovertible way? The answer is a shoulder shrug and 'I don't know.'

I already posted also why the appeal to majority you've used doesn't work, and you skipped right over that, so you can address Post #1465 before you continue the charade. 'Its true' is not the only plausible explanation for humans acting spiritually en masse. An open mind sees many other possibilities. It is the closed mind that says 'well! Must be true, then!'

No, there's plenty of other reasons.

The reason I'm being disagreeable with you or anyone at all, and the reason I've EVER been..........is its based on reciprocation. I never begin being the asshole. I'm cordial to anyone who is cordial. Its kinda natural. Its also natural to be a dick to dicks.

Why can't you answer my question about your daughter? I wasn't asking about a miracle, I said the doctors have told you that she needs a miracle to live. What are you going to do in that situation? Are you going to tell me that you would absolutely refuse to go to the chapel and get on your knees and beg God to save your kid? Yes... I guess that would be a pointless waste of your time when you could be picking out a casket and such, huh? Hey... just trying to jar you into THINKING past your vehement hatred of religion here.

The ONLY thing that I have surmised "must be true then" is that humans have a fundamental and intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self. I have intentionally left the definition of that open for interpretation because WHAT God is, is NOT the argument. Humans spiritually connect to something and this is a fundamental human behavioral attribute. It always has been, always will be.

No, I'm not going to go into a chapel.

Absolutely not.

In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof.

I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.

 

[G.T.]

As an aside, Boss, my daughter 3 weeks after her second birthday was in the hospital on a ventilator for 3 days with oxygen at dangerous levels and unable to breath on her own.

I did not pray not a single time.

She is a perfectly healthy kid, past her bout with RSV and will be 3 in December free of any health issues.

 

[Boss]

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that... or... maybe you're right, I don't know. Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.

I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.

That's where simple minds get confused.

Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.

Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.

 

[G.T.]

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that... or... maybe you're right, I don't know. Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.

I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.

That's where simple minds get confused.

Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.

Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.

Actually, science has explanations other than "because it's true" for why humans are spiritual.

Maybe you haven't dug as deeply into this or whatever, but science has offered several explanations for it. None are conclusive, because they're just as unproven as "because its true."

But that other plausible explanations exist, and there hasnt appeared to have been proof to mine eyes anyways, I find the reasons provided as unsound for forming conclusions.

I don't like to conclude things when so many other explanations exist, it seems unreasonable to me. That's all.

 

[G.T.]

That is an example - it's been consistently shown(in neuroscience) that increased spirituality in an individual corresponds with increased impairment of the right side of the brain. This can also be done purposefully, as studies on buddhists with healthy brain function have shown that through meditation they've actually learned to purposefully impair the right side of the brain.

That explanations exist other than "the spiritual world must exist," means, that it's not reasonable to reach a conclusion as of yet.

 

[Boss]

No, I'm not going to go into a chapel.

Absolutely not.

In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof.

I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.

Okay then, well... may God bless your child and keep her from ever becoming sick like that. I know if it were MY child, whether I hated religions or not, I'd be praying for a miracle. But some people may have different priorities.

Again... IF I COULD PROVE GOD... we would not be having this conversation. You realize this, no? So let's get that off the table first and foremost, before any more discussion happens... If it were possible for me to prove God to you, then we'd not be having a conversation right now. Period.

Now... whether or not someone can "prove God" is academic to what is true. I often use what I call the "Jupiter example" here. Many years ago, before man invented telescopes and studied the stars and planets, did the planet Jupiter actually exist? Of course it did, we just had not "proven" it existed yet. The "truth" was that Jupiter was there, it existed, it was real.... we didn't know it, we couldn't prove it. The fact that we lacked the ability to discover Jupiter had no bearing on the truth, and the same applies to God.

 

[G.T.]

No, I'm not going to go into a chapel.

Absolutely not.

In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof.

I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.

Okay then, well... may God bless your child and keep her from ever becoming sick like that. I know if it were MY child, whether I hated religions or not, I'd be praying for a miracle. But some people may have different priorities.

Again... IF I COULD PROVE GOD... we would not be having this conversation. You realize this, no? So let's get that off the table first and foremost, before any more discussion happens... If it were possible for me to prove God to you, then we'd not be having a conversation right now. Period.

Now... whether or not someone can "prove God" is academic to what is true. I often use what I call the "Jupiter example" here. Many years ago, before man invented telescopes and studied the stars and planets, did the planet Jupiter actually exist? Of course it did, we just had not "proven" it existed yet. The "truth" was that Jupiter was there, it existed, it was real.... we didn't know it, we couldn't prove it. The fact that we lacked the ability to discover Jupiter had no bearing on the truth, and the same applies to God.

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ironic coming from the poster who vehemently denigrates and insults Atheists whenever they expose his baseless babbling BS.

Just in case you haven't picked up on it, I am no longer taking your troll bait. I understand you pride yourself in being the antagonist, but you'll need to find someone else to pull this shit on. Whenever you can formulate a coherent argument, we'll talk. Until then, you can pretty much go fuck yourself.

Irony squared that you just proved my point about you!

 

[Boss]

That is an example - it's been consistently shown(in neuroscience) that increased spirituality in an individual corresponds with increased impairment of the right side of the brain. This can also be done purposefully, as studies on buddhists with healthy brain function have shown that through meditation they've actually learned to purposefully impair the right side of the brain.

That explanations exist other than "the spiritual world must exist," means, that it's not reasonable to reach a conclusion as of yet.

I didn't say the spiritual world must exist. I said that humans have an intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self. Whether a spiritual world exists or not, humans fundamentally believe it does and this is a major behavioral attribute that is important, if not vital and essential, to humans.

I've seen and read about all the "explanations" concocted by Atheists to explain away God. Almost to a fault, they simply contradict science and logic. I've gone through these arguments many times, it never changes the mind of the Atheist.

Humans didn't invent spirituality, if they did there would be archeological evidence to show when that happened, and there isn't. The oldest remains of human civilizations we've ever discovered, reveals humans were spiritual. Not only that, but this human spiritual attribute is found in every civilization around the globe from all corners of the Earth. Consistently, humans are spiritual and always have been.

Humans DID invent religions. But religions are merely indication that humans are spiritually connected. Another popular argument is that humans are spiritual becuase of an irrational fear of the unknown or death. Again, this contradicts science. No other living thing that we have observed does this. Our irrational fear of death stems from our being spiritually aware of immortality. Man created spirituality to explain the unexplained... again, that's why man created SCIENCE.

So all of these assorted "explanations" for human spirituality, simply fail the test of science and observation. 95% of the species has a behavioral attribute where we believe in a power greater than self. Even Darwin would conclude that is important to the species.

 

[G.T.]

I don't conclude it. I don't see any evidence of it other than "we practice it."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that... or... maybe you're right, I don't know. Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.

I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.

That's where simple minds get confused.

Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.

Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.

There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.

Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.

 

[Boss]

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't understand why you keep saying these things. All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously. This is where this whole things started over nothing. Why is that a problem for some? Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God? I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind. When did I ever pretend that I did that? I didn't do that. How could I do that or believe that I did that? That would be sick. Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind? Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time? I'm sick of his lies. He isn't making any sense. It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing. He has the rules of organic thought all wrong. He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread. He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true. He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear. Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying? Why would anyone lie about these things? Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all. I understand it better than him. It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either. I don't understand you. You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true. In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought? How could that be? You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies. How can lies help people?

Hey, Justin, allow me to make a suggestion. Paragraphs. Now you may know this and maybe this is just the way you want to do. It's just hard to read. No slight intended. Just saying, just in case. Start a paragraph with an idea that introduces a specific point or related points. Last sentence: summary/conclusion/end of idea. It's not an exact science, but practice makes perfect. Don't have to get it right, just close. See suggested divisions.

By the way, Foxfryer is good people.

Thanks for the tip. The truth is I had to quite school to run the family business. I know I could write better if I had just been able to concentrate on studies more but my dad's condition made that difficult sometimes as I had to take care of things a lot since I was 14. I'm the oldest so I was the dad and then I started falling into his ways but had to put the brakes on that. I believe God was there helping me not do that even before I became a Christian.

I think Foxfyre is a nice person too but she just keeps missing the point. I'm sorry but that is the truth. I don't have as much knowledge or education as some but I do have more understanding of things than some who have talked to me as if they could be my mentors.

Q.W. is a ridiculous person without understanding because he lies to himself about everything and so his mind is closed to everything, though the bigger truths are right there in front of him. How can a man know God when he can't even allow himself to see the simplest things about God or about most everything else really? I see that he's still lying about logic even after you have made it clear he's lying and is without understanding. That nutcase trying to tell someone like you that youre ignorant or dogmatic is like a rock trying to think its way into something alive. Even I have a better understanding of things. Any who really understood constructive logic would see that it points to God too and I just learned constructive logic from my own research. It's not that hard to learn about.

I understood you from the beginning what you are talking about, the principle of identity from scripture, from the idea of Jesus as the unifying creative word of God and naturally the apostles talk about this idea constantly. I don't believe Q.W. when he tells me he has all this reading in scripture. How could someone have all that reading he's talking about and not see this? How could Foxfyre not see that this man is so ignorant and unwise? Also, the idea of Jesus being the universal being of the universe's physical laws and the connection between that and our minds is talked about by all kinds of bible teachers and theologians. It's a standard idea understood for centuries and I know that from my study of what these guys have told me about history citing scripture too. It's self-evident from scripture and from the understanding of Christians in history. It's not just an idea that philosophers have had. As far as science goes how could we do science if our thinking wasn't connected to the way things work. Q.W. is a nutcase. And I'm just starting to learn about what you said about the Logos. The apostles intentionally used that word in Greek because it meant the same thing as the idea that Greeks had about God, whoever that might be to them. They saw the same truth from thinking clearly about the things that God shows us in our minds, they just had the wrong God or gods.