Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

“Long before you and I started this debate, or were even born, there was contention as to whether or not an intelligence was requisite for universal creation, or if it could have happened naturalistically without intent.”

Right. Exactly. So what the beep?

“Somehow you fail to identify that there is a difference between these two notions.”

You’re out of your friggin’ mind. I’m guilty of no such failure. That’s precisely the distinction I made. Goal-posting again, eh?

”Your whole "irreducible primary (do you mean "primacy"?) of being" argument offers you nothing regarding God's actual nature.”

No. I meant precisely what I wrote: “the irreducible primary of being relative to the problem of origin: (1) inanimateness or (2) consciousness. Period. The secondary concern of primacy would go to one or the other, depending on which of the two alternatives of the irreducible primary were the origin of all being. But you already know all that. You’re just goal-posting again, pretending not to understand, aren’t you? LOL! How lame.

“Oh NOW you care about falsifiability. Never mind that your whole belief system is plagued with unfalsifiability.”

Intellectual dishonesty. Fraud. Liar. Goal-posting. Behold the pathological depravity of atheism. I never argued that theological matters were subject to scientific falsification. You’re the only one who’s tried to argue that stupidity, albeit, to the negative. Theological considerations arise from certain axiomatic observations that reach beyond the limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry. They’re not subject to the methodology of science. Instead, they’re subject to the universal rules of logic per the comprehensive expression of identity, and the ontological arguments of theology, which include the fundamentals of mathematical calculi and geometric forms, are not proofs of God’s existence, but proofs regarding the existence and the nature of the divine construct of origin, including the proof that the construct, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to infinite regression. The theological ontologicals are logically sound and cannot be rationally countered.

”You believe this, yet repeatedly state that it is indisputably obvious that the universe was created by such a means. Has it never occurred to you how inconsistent your logic is?”

Again, you lie. And you wonder why I treat atheists with such contempt. Recall. In that instance, you were speaking in the context of science, ya dolt. Hence, the context of my response is scientific. Non-empirical considerations about reality cannot be assessed scientifically. Such reside beyond the purview of science. If you’re not talking about empirical data, you’re not talking about science. The only one who keeps confounding this distinction is you, ya friggin’ retard. The logical inconsistency is yours, repeatedly yours, precisely because you can’t keep this obvious distinction in your mind for more than one brief moment at a time.

Umm, no. You are trying to tell me that this PM is an intelligence that acts with intent. I am saying that we have no evidence of this, and am offering an alternative that is simpler and more open to investigative inquiry.

Umm, yes. Your argument was rounding refuted, and you just moved the goal posts again. So I’ll just blow this nonsense off.

I'm not arguing that. Show me an atheist who is. What I'm arguing is that you jump a couple steps off the logical line by assuming additional traits without substantiation.

Here's another question, to help highlight this: Let us assume that, yes, a God was indeed responsible for using the big bang to create the universe. Fine, then. But why is it imminently obvious that said entity still exists? What if it ceased to be during the Big Bang, or "died" at any point prior to now? How can you establish that he is still with us, influencing events by his will?

Blah, blah, blah . . . what?

Far as we can tell, the existence of energy is not subject to causality. Unlike matter, time and space and even the laws of physics, energy appears to have existed "prior" to the big bang. Energy, it seems, is at the core of everything that exists now. If we were to find God, it might be in energy. But energy shows know evidence of acting intelligently and with intent. Divinity is guessed at, not shown.

Material energy of space-mass would arguably be subject to causality as physicists, philosophers and theologians have shown. But in any event, we’re getting into the realm of that which is unfalsifiable. We’re getting into the realm of metaphysics and the teleological. There’s no way of assessing whether or not any transcendent force/energy beyond the Big Bang were acting without intelligence or intent. Your statement is meaningless for reasons that apparently fly right over head.

We can have an academic dick-measuring contest if you want, but we'd have to be reliant on the honor system, and you're better served by showing off your skills in rationality and persuasion than hiding behind ad hominems and bluster.

That’s an incredible statement given that you think your atheism places you above the heads of ordinary mortals.

You've been slinging around insults and being a multipurpose blowhard since before I jumped in. You've done a lot better on your first two responses to me, but your opening statements were seething with either rage or an exaggerated sense authority before I popped in. I'm just challenging you because it is good exercise, and have little emotional investment in the issue.

No. I’ve just been laughing at the pseudo-intellectualism of atheism.

Nonsense, the matter goes to origin. We did not invent God. Your denial of His existence proves that. You're being obtuse.

No. I'm not. I understand evolutionary theory very well. Do you have an argument beyond this point?

Are you one of those people without an argument? Looks like it.

You write: “Do you mean to say that someone who was born on an island and had no contact with religion of any kind would believe immediately in God?

I think not. The concept of a higher power is a construct of discussion between multiple people in order to explain the inexplicable.”

Well, think again. And once again, this impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.

Islands? Religion? Dialogue?

1. I exist.

2. The universe exists.

3. Conscious entities, inanimate entitles.

Any person of normal intelligence can readily apprehend the alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. There’s no mystery here.

[continued . . .]

Speaking of which. . . .

You write: “Energy is not subject to it. Everything is made of energy. The Singularity that preceded the Big Bang was composed entirely of energy and not subject to time. So it can sit in the "Prime Mover's" Chair just as easily as a God.”

Precisely! And you just brought us right back to what I’ve been telling you all along, haven’t you?

This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.

That is to say, the alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy is inescapable.

Rawlings: “The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he opens his yap and denies there be any substance behind the construct.”

You write: “Care to give an example?”

Every time you open your mouth and deny. . . . Dude! You just affirmed it again: “[s]o it can sit in the ‘Prime Mover's’ Chair just as easily as a God.”

Just so! The inescapable alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy . . . only, ontologically speaking, your space-mass energy is still subject to the issue of causality due to its materiality, and the notion that it exists outside the dimension of time is strictly asserted relative to our cosmological notion of time. Relative to a divine cause of eternal transcendence, it would still be subject to a definite, albeit, undeterminable, beginning from this side of the limits of general relativity’s explanatory power. That’s all.

You write: “Atheism is rational and would be common sense if ‘common’ folks had more sense, education and well-developed critical thinking skills.”

LOL! Well, I’ll take the commonsense of common folk over the delusional sense of intellectual superiority of the arrogant, self-appointed prigs of the new atheism any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. As for education, mine in regard to the history of ideas and events, and, subsequently, in regard to philosophy and the classic rules of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression are clearly beyond your intellectual background. And I’d willing to bet that mine in regard to mathematics and science is more advanced as well. As for the unexamined product of your critical thinking skills, it has been utterly routed, and that is clear to anyone with an IQ above that of small rash. Indeed, you repeatedly, albeit, unwittingly, prove my point again and again by your very own words.

You write: “Also, why are you so angry about this topic?”

Angry? LOL! Projecting?

[continued . . .]

You write: “Please identify the fanaticism and faith that is intertwined within the definition of atheism.”

I already did. Twice. There’s no rational foundation on which you can stand and baldy deny God’s existence. One may arguably say within reason that God may not exist, but that’s all, and the limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry have no bearing on the matter whatsoever.

You write: “This is the third time you've made this statement. You should try to either type less or type different things.”

Well, I can’t help it if atheists are thickheaded.

Rawlings: “The idea of God objectively exists in and of itself: it imposes itself on our minds in terms of origin without our willing that it do so.”

You write: “Support this. Virtually everyone on the planet received their introduction to the concept of God from an outside source.”

Dude. Zoom! Right over your thickhead! No. We do not get the construct of ultimate divine origin in and of itself from some “outside source”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. What idea of God are you denying?

Rawlings: “The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied. . . .”

You write: “The Department of Redundancy Department Strikes Again!”

No. The Department of What’s-That-Universally-Self-Evident-Construct-of-Origin-You-Keep-Denying Redundancy strikes again!

Rawlings: “. . . the idea God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression.”

You ask: “why would God not be subject to it?”

Uh . . . this has to be explained to you? Seriously? By definition, God is the transcendent, immaterial, eternally self-subsistence entity. He doesn’t need a cause. Even Hawking et al. understand that. That’s why they attempt to irrationally argue the nonsense that the gravitational energy of the vacuum/singularity of quantum physics, which is quite obviously a material something of mass without matter, namely space, is a metaphysical/existential nothingness. Uh . . . excuse me, but plenty of physicists have a serious problem with Hawking, Krauss et al.’s semantic hijinks too, and Hawking, Krauss et al. know bloody damn well that they’re not talking about a metaphysical/existential nothingness. They are in fact talking about a material cause, the origin of which remains subject to the problem of infinite regression.

You write: “It is stupid to reject a claim that is unfalsifiable, untestable, unconfirmed. . . .

Hence, the limits of sensory perception/the limits of scientific inquiry are the limits of reality/human cognition?

You continue: “. . . unnecessary in multiple recorded instances?”

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

You write: “Does that mean that reliance on faith, which essentially amounts to believing something is true because you want it to be true, is some how a sign of intelligence?”

Faith has nothing to do with the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. It’s self-evident. It's at the base of knowledge. It's derived from reason, not faith. I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility, which, incidentally, do not plague the bald assertion that God must be whatsoever. The reason for this is self-evident: the idea of God pertains to the origin of the universe, not to its nonexistence, while the unqualified denial of God's existence detours around an inescapable imperative: the undeniable possibility. The former stems from larger considerations that do not interrupt the natural course of logic; the latter is akin to the blind devotion of religious fanaticism.

You write: “One cannot rationally confirm the possibility of God's existence. Period.”

Oh, yes, one can! That’s the irony of it all. The positive affirmation that God must be does not violate the imperatives of logic while the flat-out denial of God‘s existence does. See the above and think about it.

You write: “Well, it sure appears as though you make enough bald assertions yourself that you should be able to recognize them from miles away. You are also redundant.”

These assertions are the logical imperatives of ontological realities. One cannot rationally deny the existence of God. By definition, God is not an empirical entity. Essentially, all the atheist is saying is that God doesn’t exist because God is not an empirical entity. Wow! Just wow!

This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent. I’m not saying that this objectively apparent impression constitutes a proof for either alternative. I’m simply saying, for the sake of argument, that neither of these potentialities can be rationally denied. Period.

LOL! And of course you’re talking about the near-eastern geocentric cosmology of the ancient Hebrews. Dude, Genesis is not a scientific treatise. It’s a theological treatise rendered in the ancient’s pre-scientific perspective of things. Yeah. Right. Like they would have had the first clue (given their primitive technology, which is to say nothing but their five senses) what God was talking about had He gone on about a heliocentric universe, the Newtonian theory of motion, general relativity, quantum mechanics, multiverse theory. . . . That’s a pretty lame comeback given that I obviously do not believe that. What are we now about 500 years into the post-Copernicus era? LOL! How's that abiogenesis (the new spontaneous generation of atheistic mythology) workin' out for ya?

http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/ 03/years-of-experience-have-shown-me-that_06.html