The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Hollie]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?​

So where exactly is the evidence for the supernatural that I'm supposed to use in science? God's never been observed, measured, quantified, or subjected to a falsifiable test. Let's ignore that for a moment. Assuming the supernatural is real, where do I put God in the lab? What variable do I use for God while I'm trying to balance a chemical equation? Where do I put God in a physics formula? We know all about GACT in DNA, but what's the chemical we use for God?

That's right. Science can't verify or falsify God's existence, can it? Just like it can't verify or falsify your metaphysics of materialism, can it? Science is a limited field of inquiry, isn't it? Doesn't even make a lick a sense to talk about God or your religion of materialism in terms of science, does it?

But, oh, looky here. There's not a shred of evidence whatsoever for the metaphysics of materialism, while there's tons of evidence for God's existence and logical, axiomatic proofs of human psychology supporting God's existence.

How fitting that for all your screeching about evidence for the gawds, you've never actually presented any evidence.

 

[dblack]

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?​

So where exactly is the evidence for the supernatural that I'm supposed to use in science? God's never been observed, measured, quantified, or subjected to a falsifiable test. Let's ignore that for a moment. Assuming the supernatural is real, where do I put God in the lab? What variable do I use for God while I'm trying to balance a chemical equation? Where do I put God in a physics formula? We know all about GACT in DNA, but what's the chemical we use for God?

That's right. Science can't verify or falsify God's existence, can it? Just like it can't verify or falsify your metaphysics of materialism, can it? Science is a limited field of inquiry, isn't it? Doesn't even make a lick a sense to talk about God or your religion of materialism in terms of science, does it?

But, oh, looky here. There's not a shred of evidence whatsoever for the metaphysics of materialism, while there's tons of evidence for God's existence and logical, axiomatic proofs of human psychology supporting God's existence.

How fitting that for all your screeching about evidence for the gawds, you've never actually presented any evidence.

Things is things.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!​

If you want to believe that twaddle, then whatever gets your rocks off.

You believe whatever stuff you want to- I will choose not to believe that stuff- and we get along fine.

What twaddle are you talking about? Are you a relativist suggesting that you can refute the bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought? Why don't you start there if it's all twaddle. That should be a hoot.

By the way, just to save Hollie and company time with more twaddle:

The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!

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

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

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

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Things is things.

And ill-educated, scientifically illiterate, atheistic boobs are boobs.

 

[Syriusly]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!​

If you want to believe that twaddle, then whatever gets your rocks off.

You believe whatever stuff you want to- I will choose not to believe that stuff- and we get along fine.

What twaddle are you talking about? Are you a relativist suggesting that you can refute the bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought?

That twaddle.

I am not suggesting I 'can' refute the twaddle you posted- I am saying it is twaddle.

 

[Hollie]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!​

If you want to believe that twaddle, then whatever gets your rocks off.

You believe whatever stuff you want to- I will choose not to believe that stuff- and we get along fine.

What twaddle are you talking about? Are you a relativist suggesting that you can refute the bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought? Why don't you start there if it's all twaddle. That should be a hoot.

By the way, just to save Hollie and company time with more twaddle:

The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!

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

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

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

Sorry, but this has been addressed for you and resolved on multiple occasions There are no laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired.

Yours is a pointless, unsubstantiated and fraudulent claim. But then, you have an entire posting history of pointless, unsubstantiated and fraudulent claims.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!​

If you want to believe that twaddle, then whatever gets your rocks off.

You believe whatever stuff you want to- I will choose not to believe that stuff- and we get along fine.

What twaddle are you talking about? Are you a relativist suggesting that you can refute the bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought?

That twaddle.

I am not suggesting I 'can' refute the twaddle you posted- I am saying it is twaddle.

Okay, Hollie II.

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you want to believe that twaddle, then whatever gets your rocks off.

You believe whatever stuff you want to- I will choose not to believe that stuff- and we get along fine.

odd then that you come here and complain about what we believe........

 

[Hollie]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!​

If you want to believe that twaddle, then whatever gets your rocks off.

You believe whatever stuff you want to- I will choose not to believe that stuff- and we get along fine.

What twaddle are you talking about? Are you a relativist suggesting that you can refute the bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought? Why don't you start there if it's all twaddle. That should be a hoot.

By the way, just to save Hollie and company time with more twaddle:

The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!

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

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

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

Just to correct your unfounded, unsupported and specious opinion, there is no evidence and nothing to suggest that your ponderous claim to some invention of yours regarding human thought being bioneurologically hardwired is anything more than another of your specious crisis.

 

[Syriusly]

If you want to believe that twaddle, then whatever gets your rocks off.

You believe whatever stuff you want to- I will choose not to believe that stuff- and we get along fine.

odd then that you come here and complain about what we believe........

I really don't. You can believe whatever you want.

But if you tell me I have to believe what you believe, and then spout twaddle, I will call it what it is- twaddle.

 

[Newby]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

I personally find your fascination with me to be little more than stalking.

I see you recognized yourself in my post, awareness of your problem is the first step, kudos to you! lol

 

[Newby]

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. Simply.

Five Things!!!!

No, wait. Seven Things!!!!

Er... Things!!!!!

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exist in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course, the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. Simply.

Five Things!!!!

No, wait. Seven Things!!!!

Er... Things!!!!!

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course, the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

It does get old. You are something of a typical case demonstrating the dangers of religious extremism. I don't think you are even aware of just how nonsensical your comments are.. I think you are, like most religious zealots willing to pick and choose criteria in order to have the belief system that makes you feel good. If something stands in the way of your conclusion, you'll just ignore it and believe anyway. You're actually a lot more clueless than most in that you simply refuse to acknowledge there are serious problems with the blueprint (I know you think the bible is not the cornerstone of your beliefs, but without it, you would never heard of jeebus, so it is the blueprint of your beliefs, whether you want to acknowledge it or not). Most believers insist there's nothing wrong at all with the bibles.

You wouldn't recognize 'religious extremism' if it came up and slapped your face. Anyone that has any belief in a higher being is a 'religious extremist' to you, and should be ridiculed. I've never seen you treat anyone that has stated they believe in a higher being with respect, regardless of where their religious beliefs are. You should look in the mirror if you want to see a real 'extremist', you fit the description to a 'T'. lol

 

[Hollie]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

I personally find your fascination with me to be little more than stalking.

I see you recognized yourself in my post, awareness of your problem is the first step, kudos to you! lol

I recognized only you as a spammer.

 

[Newby]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

What real arguments?

I was fairly clear from the beginning- I am an atheist- I don't believe in a god- any god- nothing more, nothing less.

I have no issues with you believing in what you want to believe- I just don't.

I objected to the attack by the OP on me- as an atheist- simply because I do not believe in what you believe.

I have no need to defend my lack of belief- and I see no reason why you need to defend your belief.

What I have noticed is that you- and others seem offended that I do not share your beliefs- and that is your problem- not mine.

The Op wasn't 'attacking' you because you don't believe what they believe, perhaps that's where went wrong right from the start?

 

[Hollie]

Five Things!!!!

No, wait. Seven Things!!!!

Er... Things!!!!!

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exist in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course, the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

Five Things!!!!

No, wait. Seven Things!!!!

Er... Things!!!!!

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course, the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

It does get old. You are something of a typical case demonstrating the dangers of religious extremism. I don't think you are even aware of just how nonsensical your comments are.. I think you are, like most religious zealots willing to pick and choose criteria in order to have the belief system that makes you feel good. If something stands in the way of your conclusion, you'll just ignore it and believe anyway. You're actually a lot more clueless than most in that you simply refuse to acknowledge there are serious problems with the blueprint (I know you think the bible is not the cornerstone of your beliefs, but without it, you would never heard of jeebus, so it is the blueprint of your beliefs, whether you want to acknowledge it or not). Most believers insist there's nothing wrong at all with the bibles.

You wouldn't recognize 'religious extremism' if it came up and slapped your face. Anyone that has any belief in a higher being is a 'religious extremist' to you, and should be ridiculed. I've never seen you treat anyone that has stated they believe in a higher being with respect, regardless of where their religious beliefs are. You should look in the mirror if you want to see a real 'extremist', you fit the description to a 'T'. lol

Stalker.

 

[Newby]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

I personally find your fascination with me to be little more than stalking.

I see you recognized yourself in my post, awareness of your problem is the first step, kudos to you! lol

I recognized only you as a spammer.

You're really a hoot, Hollie! Don't you have some Christians to go persecute somewhere? Oh, that's right, you do that here because you're too much of a coward to go into a church and tell all of those 'nasty' Christians just how stupid they are.

 

[Newby]

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exist in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course, the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course, the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

It does get old. You are something of a typical case demonstrating the dangers of religious extremism. I don't think you are even aware of just how nonsensical your comments are.. I think you are, like most religious zealots willing to pick and choose criteria in order to have the belief system that makes you feel good. If something stands in the way of your conclusion, you'll just ignore it and believe anyway. You're actually a lot more clueless than most in that you simply refuse to acknowledge there are serious problems with the blueprint (I know you think the bible is not the cornerstone of your beliefs, but without it, you would never heard of jeebus, so it is the blueprint of your beliefs, whether you want to acknowledge it or not). Most believers insist there's nothing wrong at all with the bibles.

You wouldn't recognize 'religious extremism' if it came up and slapped your face. Anyone that has any belief in a higher being is a 'religious extremist' to you, and should be ridiculed. I've never seen you treat anyone that has stated they believe in a higher being with respect, regardless of where their religious beliefs are. You should look in the mirror if you want to see a real 'extremist', you fit the description to a 'T'. lol

Stalker.

Stalker, leave me alone Hollie! Quit responding to my posts!!!

 

[Hollie]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

I personally find your fascination with me to be little more than stalking.

I see you recognized yourself in my post, awareness of your problem is the first step, kudos to you! lol

I recognized only you as a spammer.

You're really a hoot, Hollie! Don't you have some Christians to go persecute somewhere? Oh, that's right, you do that here because you're too much of a coward to go into a church and tell all of those 'nasty' Christians just how stupid they are.

My goodness but you angry, self-hating fundies do have a pathology of hate. It's self destructive, as you so amply demonstrate.

 

[Newby]

If you want to believe that twaddle, then whatever gets your rocks off.

You believe whatever stuff you want to- I will choose not to believe that stuff- and we get along fine.

odd then that you come here and complain about what we believe........

I really don't. You can believe whatever you want.

But if you tell me I have to believe what you believe, and then spout twaddle, I will call it what it is- twaddle.

I'm guessing no one has every told you that you have to believe what they believe, except maybe your parents. Who else would care?

 

[Newby]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

I personally find your fascination with me to be little more than stalking.

I see you recognized yourself in my post, awareness of your problem is the first step, kudos to you! lol

I recognized only you as a spammer.

You're really a hoot, Hollie! Don't you have some Christians to go persecute somewhere? Oh, that's right, you do that here because you're too much of a coward to go into a church and tell all of those 'nasty' Christians just how stupid they are.

My goodness but you angry, self-hating fundies do have a pathology of hate. It's self destructive, as you so amply demonstrate.

Unfortunate for you, your 'evidence' sucks Hollie! I haven't 'self destructed', I'm still here, exposing you for what you are! Another 'theory' by Hollie bites the dust! lol