tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post9122054024799182020..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad AttitudeBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger941125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-6118456179811096622016-01-27T04:57:05.662-05:002016-01-27T04:57:05.662-05:00This Michael David Rawlings guy has recently showe...This Michael David Rawlings guy has recently showed up on my blog-site arguing with me. He commented under my Evolution is A Fact here: http://waronfaith.blogspot.com/<br /><br />I agree that this guy tries to sound smart by using many words, however the content in which he types lacks any real information. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06798657004017487696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-14304320260471093492014-08-28T07:04:46.687-04:002014-08-28T07:04:46.687-04:00Richard said
Photo left because he really had no...Richard said <br /><br />Photo left because he really had nothing to say about anything. <br /><br />A true donkey.<br /><br />Says a man talking from his ass constantly, and one who believes asses can talk.<br /><br />O the Irony.Tommy Hunslapperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00015000273613107226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63680576793072944592013-01-06T21:04:43.025-05:002013-01-06T21:04:43.025-05:00(a copy of Michael's self-blowing-ass comment ...(a copy of Michael's self-blowing-ass comment for later reference)<br />____________________________<br /><i>Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...<br />Okay, back again. . . .<br /><br />photoZero stupidly writes: "Well, Michael, it's you who claimed that your imaginary friend called "God" could do this. . . ."<br /><br />No. I didn't. That's what you told yourself. LOL! The process of dividing something by infinity via the math of the standard numeric value system is not the same thing as the process of divisionally reducing something to nothing. (More on that later: think symmetry mathematics.) I knew if I stated the distinction that way, it would fly right over your heads and lead to the exposure of Peikoff’s malarkey. <br /><br />When exposing pathological liars, the only ones moving the goal posts, you have to set traps. <br /><br />And you just fell into another.<br /><br />So first you were trying to argue that standard numeric division by infinity ends at zero, photoZero, and, therefore, I was wrong.<br /><br />Now, you’re necessarily arguing that I’m wrong about something else . . . because you’re math was all wrong. A confession.<br /><br />But, photoZero, the process of divisionally reducing something to nothing would ultimately be the process of eradicating something, not the mere process of partitioning something. The duration of the latter is eternal, just like God, and the duration of the former is electively arbitrary . . . after the first instance of division. Indeed, the insertion of the term divisionally is gratuitous. The operative outcome of reduction (i.e., subtraction) is not division! <br /><br />*crickets chirping*<br /><br />When exposing psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty: first, set a trap and then spring it . . . at the most exquisitely sweet moment of irony. It’s all in the timing. <br /><br />I’ve been miles and miles down the road ahead of you clowns from the beginning.<br /><br />How ya likin’ me now?<br />_____________________________<br /><br />Psst. DuhsonZero, sure, by all means, have it your way. How are the various of aspects of those DVD cabinets you described and those of the one I describe hangin’ in your brain, you know, those “encodings embodied in material particles”? How about an update. LOL!<br /><br />Keep talking DuhsonZero. It’s real hoot.<br /><br /><br />JANUARY 05, 2013 2:45 PM</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-24537553545618827452013-01-04T17:09:09.685-05:002013-01-04T17:09:09.685-05:00Hello friends. This too is off topic, sort of, but...Hello friends. This too is off topic, sort of, but I think this lady's opinion on prepositional religious notions makes sense.<br /><br /><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/01/on-leaving-christianityall-religion.html#comment-755113982" rel="nofollow">Link to Articulett's comment.</a><br /><br />Best and GoodAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-48876442756784692182013-01-04T10:28:33.780-05:002013-01-04T10:28:33.780-05:00@Robert
This is off topic but you have to check t...@Robert<br /><br />This is off topic but you have to check this out<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146<br /><br />strange stuff indeed!Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-45938105814309828162013-01-04T10:04:53.025-05:002013-01-04T10:04:53.025-05:00Richard,
What must be sore is Michael's ass. ...Richard,<br /><br />What must be sore is Michael's ass. Yes, the one you are kissing and licking. Did you think that the redness was all natural? Or was it covered with shit that you've been cleaning up with your mouth and you did not notice? Did he give you a "cherry" yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-56942077131533320512013-01-04T09:58:18.967-05:002013-01-04T09:58:18.967-05:00Michael brayed,
... they are copying and pasting...Michael brayed,<br /><br /><i> ... they are copying and pasting and emailing ...</i><br /><br />I doubt it. If your "friends" did not have enough computational skills to help you search my math comment and thus help you avoid embarrassing yourself, I doubt they would know how to copy/paste and e-mail.<br /><br />Maybe what you have is imaginary friends ... Oh wait! Of course you do! That's what your whole problem is about!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-84369882059200116712013-01-04T09:02:51.728-05:002013-01-04T09:02:51.728-05:00freddies_dead commented on MDR's statement reg...freddies_dead commented on MDR's statement regarding "divine consciusness". MDR's use of the word "divine" is interesting in that it constitutes yet another red herring stemming from MDR's mentally confused state. Consider that the word "divine" means <i> Having the nature of or being a deity. b. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity</i>. The alleged deity in question is asserted to be immaterial and transcendent. Notions of that which has no substance, i.e.:, mass-energy, fields, spatial location or dimensional specificity, or duration cannot have any primary properties or attributes and are indistinguishable from nothingness, so the God notion cannot have either secondary or relational attributes such as abilities or emotions. Consequently, MDR's delusional fantasy that his alleged divinity can have or is consciousness is patently absurd. Non-Cognitivism defeats theistic Ontological presuppositions. Theists like Richard and MDR or more general deists have no justification for assuming consciousness of any sort has primacy over existence. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-17238431575918909622013-01-04T08:24:12.590-05:002013-01-04T08:24:12.590-05:00Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon"...Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...<br /><br /><i>In all these things we have the primacy of divine consciousness over all that exists apart from divine consciousness, and we have the contingency of all that exists apart from divine consciousness.</i><br /><br />Is this consciousness "divine" independently of what anyone thinks/wants/wishes? Or is it divine due to some conscious wish?<br /><br />Does divine consciousness have "primacy over all that exists apart from divine consciousness", independently of what anyone thinks/wants/wishes? Or does it have that primacy due to some conscious wish?<br /><br />Is "all that exists apart from divine consciousness" contingent independently of what anyone thinks/wants/wishes? Or is it contingent due to some conscious wish?<br /><br />Are you going to start arguing in a manner that is consistent with the worldview you profess to hold anytime soon?freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-76089790443095905952013-01-03T18:23:55.149-05:002013-01-03T18:23:55.149-05:00Photo the deceiver,
sore loser.Photo the deceiver,<br /><br />sore loser.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-64458267946438271452013-01-03T18:02:30.276-05:002013-01-03T18:02:30.276-05:00Michael,
Would that be like the bald, irrational ...Michael,<br /><br /><i>Would that be like the bald, irrational assertion that something arose from nothing?</i><br /><br />I never said anything about something coming from nothing, you must mistake me for this guy Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" who said that his imaginary friend, which he calls "God," not only is real, but can reduce reality to nothing then from nothing back to something. I agree with you that Michael's is a ridiculous proposition.<br /><br />The very same guy who mistakes representations with actualities.<br /><br />Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon." The very same guy who said that the quotient of dividing a number by infinity is an indivisible immutable infinity with no beginning and no end.<br /><br />Quite contradictory this Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon." But we can't expect much from Michael, he is so mathematically illiterate that after a month, and after consulting a lot, all he could come up with was the very same procedure I showed him above, only in terms of a limit theorem. Then this poor guy had to mistake a procedure for finding a limit with the limit itself, and not content then lied about me putting quotients in the place of dividends. All while destroying his own claim that infinities could be actual.<br /><br />This guy, Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon," who is also computationally illiterate, who could have checked my comment on the math and saved a lot of embarrassment, but he did not know how to search within a web page. Too stupid the guy.<br /><br />After shovelling so much of his own crap back up his own ass, this Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon," is now asking Richard to kiss and lick his ass for relief, and Richard has so proceeded and seems to be enjoying it a lot. Richard is enjoying licking that ass so much that he now wants a "cherry" on top.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-589198347352482832013-01-03T13:23:55.604-05:002013-01-03T13:23:55.604-05:00Michael,
Cool.
It would be rude not to put the c...Michael,<br /><br />Cool.<br /><br />It would be rude not to put the cherry on top.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-16777681076805044062013-01-03T13:21:48.812-05:002013-01-03T13:21:48.812-05:00Robert,
why don't you invite "Articulett...Robert,<br /><br />why don't you invite "Articulett" over here?<br /><br />By the way thanks for your admission. However, I always knew that you couldn't distuinguish a demonic delusion from your claims.<br /><br />Good job, bud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-18989654034827981422013-01-03T13:11:17.272-05:002013-01-03T13:11:17.272-05:00Don't forget those "encoding[s]" of ...Don't forget those "encoding[s]" of mathematical data "embodied in material particles" that are not actual.<br /><br />LOL!Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon"https://www.blogger.com/profile/17918219528532461004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-87103370230010830762013-01-03T12:54:47.448-05:002013-01-03T12:54:47.448-05:00Richard, a handful have asked me to round out just...Richard, a handful have asked me to round out just a few more points, they are copying and pasting and emailing. Words going out on Dawson et al. We're all getting a laugh out of the "Divine Lonesomeness" argument especially.<br /><br />And of course, there’s zero.Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon"https://www.blogger.com/profile/17918219528532461004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-29832012615415701482013-01-03T12:48:01.020-05:002013-01-03T12:48:01.020-05:00Does it burn, Robert?Does it burn, Robert?Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon"https://www.blogger.com/profile/17918219528532461004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-55522578393438895672013-01-03T12:22:50.525-05:002013-01-03T12:22:50.525-05:00Over at DebunkingChristianity.blogspot.com, a user...Over at DebunkingChristianity.blogspot.com, a user who comments under the handle Articulett noted why people like Michael and Richard are delusional. She wrote:<br /><br /><b>Either the natural world is all there is-- or an infinity of possible supernatural beings, forces, and realms are possible with no way to tell the real from the imaginary-- and yet every believer in the supernatural imagines they have figured out a way to do so!</b><br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/01/quote-fo-day-by-articulett.html<br /><br />If reality does not exist independently of consciousness, then knowledge is not possible, and we're either all intentionally deceived and deluded by the famous Cartesian demon. Or the ruling consciousness is the ultimate solipsist, and we don't actually exist at all. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-62103016166026156512013-01-03T11:52:15.268-05:002013-01-03T11:52:15.268-05:00I wrote: “Exactly, Richard, zero is not infinity....I wrote: “Exactly, Richard, zero is not infinity. It's nothing. And there has never been a nothing. There has always been a something.”<br /><br />photozero: “. . . (some crappy bald assertions about some god and math) . . ."<br /><br />Would that be like the bald, irrational assertion that something arose from nothing? And of course, the math and that which has always existed, for the sake of argument, objectively speaking, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God. Isn’t that what you said? I agree. LOL!<br /><br />Zoom!<br /><br />What did Robert say, "hissy fit"?<br /><br />Hardly. Richard and I are just exposing your irrationalism and that of Objectivism to many eyes. We’re all just observing and passing the word along . . . taking change out of the pocket of the personality cult of Randism.<br /><br />By all means, keep talking. It’s quite a hoot.<br /><br />The quotient of dividing real numbers by infinity is zero. LOL! <br />_______________________<br /><br />Psst. Robert. How are those necessarily concrete, rather than immaterial, “encoding[s]” of numbers and geometric forms (not to mention that DVD cabinet I put in your brain) “embodied in material particles” getting along with you in within the same, wider expanse of your material existence? Seriously, when you open your mouth and let things fall out, do you always fail to apprehend the implications? Just between you and me . . . and all the others watching, go ahead, you can tell us. We won’t smirk, just laugh our asses off.<br /><br />Actually, ya dingbat, all humanity knows that if the constituents of consciousness are ultimately encoding[s]” embodied in material particles, the elements of mathematical calculi and geometric forms are actual in precisely the terms you mean. <br /><br />Psst. Dawson. How ya doing with that unintelligible claptrap of a wholly material, yet immaterial, consciousness you were babbling about? <i>A</i> is <i>B</i>, eh? It’s really bad form Dawson to be denying the actuality of your axiom of consciousness. Bad form indeed.<br /><br />LOL!<br /><br />Richard, ask Robert and Dawson if it burns.Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon"https://www.blogger.com/profile/17918219528532461004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-83148535887188579452013-01-03T11:14:26.752-05:002013-01-03T11:14:26.752-05:00Photo the deceiver,
And that's what it comes ...Photo the deceiver,<br /><br />And that's what it comes down to.<br /><br />See ya.<br /><br />Mich, I think our work here is done.<br /><br />Let's give ourselves a round of applause.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-71088439996252119512013-01-03T09:49:28.369-05:002013-01-03T09:49:28.369-05:00As a grand finale, after noticing that he could no...As a grand finale, after noticing that he could not save cheeks, Michael turns to Richard and says:<br /><br /><i>Exactly, Richard, zero is not infinity. It's nothing. And there has never been a nothing. There has always been a something. ... (some crappy bald assertions about some god and math) ...</i><br /><br />Translation is Michael is saying: Richard, please, come kiss my ass! Somebody has to worship me! Please come kiss my ass Richard!<br /><br />Richard comes and ...<br /><i>Mich, isn't amazing how deceptive photo is? He continually tries to talk his way out of the ass that is on his head. The boy is an extreme idiot ...</i><br /><br />Translation is Richard saying: Yes Mich, yes. Here, lick, lick, smooch, smooch! Don't worry Mich, if photo will not worship you, I will, lick, lick, smooch, smooch.<br /><br />I think we should leave them alone until they're done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-58221641694015241792013-01-03T08:56:35.788-05:002013-01-03T08:56:35.788-05:00Here's an amusing quote from a twitter user wh...Here's an amusing quote from a twitter user who posted this under the #atheism hash tag.<br /><br /><b>Being hostile toward #atheism is basically like having a hissy fit because I won't play "make believe" with you. Sorry. I'm not 5.</b>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-13710223866655952442013-01-03T00:14:20.182-05:002013-01-03T00:14:20.182-05:00Mich said: "Exactly, Richard, zero is not inf...Mich said: "Exactly, Richard, zero is not infinity. It's nothing. And there has never been a nothing. There has always been a something."<br /><br />Mich, isn't amazing how deceptive photo is? He continually tries to talk his way out of the ass that is on his head. The boy is an extreme idiot.<br /><br />I'm still waiting for him to tell us where do numbers begin and end. However, I highly doubt he will give answer because he knows it won't be good for his delusions.<br /><br /><br />P.S. Robert, the loon, should really shut up. If anybody has been appealing to authority, it's him.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54754446591255016052013-01-02T23:16:37.984-05:002013-01-02T23:16:37.984-05:00Robert: "Do you honestly think your bull shi...Robert: "Do you honestly think your bull shit will convince Dawson or any of his regular readers your peculiar rendition of a god fantasy has merit? If so, you're truly delusional."<br /><br />Fine. So none of this has to do with God. What of the fact that photo lied about infinity's divisional calculation.<br /><br />What about it's other calculi?<br /><br />We use these calculi in physics and cosmology. They are necessary.<br /><br />Objectivity? Reason? Sanity?<br /><br />What's wrong with you?<br /><br />I'm a semi-retired, self-employed married man in my fifties and a former Army Ranger, thank you very much, ya skinny little rooty-poot. Your profile suggests you’re in high-flying finance. Congratulations.<br /><br />Topic? <br /><br />Romper Room.<br /><br />LOL!Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon"https://www.blogger.com/profile/17918219528532461004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-15799647897481789482013-01-02T22:58:10.967-05:002013-01-02T22:58:10.967-05:00Further, the implications go on an on. The unchan...Further, the implications go on an on. The unchanging "Dividend" in the center of all creation, the immanent, yet independently existent divinity of the eternally existent now. The "Divisor" driving all of existence forward without end: primacy. The "Quotient" with no beginning: Creator, the uncaused Cause. Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon"https://www.blogger.com/profile/17918219528532461004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-18559210132376757592013-01-02T22:47:17.449-05:002013-01-02T22:47:17.449-05:00Exactly, Richard, zero is not infinity. It's ...Exactly, Richard, zero is not infinity. It's nothing. And there has never been a nothing. There has always been a something.<br /><br />Bottom line: for those who have "eyes to see," God has given us the calculation of infinite division that never ends on either side of the limiting functions.<br /><br />God is talking to us all the time. He is talking to us via the unimpeachable mathematical axioms of infinity and perfection: the fundamental numeric calculi and the geometric forms.<br /><br />God speaks: "I have no beginning and no end. I AM that I AM. I have always been and shall always be. <br /><br />And the reason we can't calculate infinity to its conclusion on either end of the limiting functions is simply because we are not God. There is but one God.<br /><br />Any real number divided by infinity yields no beginning or end: God. The real number line has no beginning or end: God. The geometric forms are utter perfection in our minds: God.<br /><br />We apprehend these things, but we cannot attain to the perfect fullness of a any of these things, neither in terms of their calculation or replication beyond our minds: human, not God.<br /><br />You guys are trying to pretend that the implications of all these things point to something other than God. You want to be your own god. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You owe your Maker homage.<br /><br />Some of you want to be God. Sorry, job's taken. You can't fire Him. You can only deceive yourselves.<br /><br />In all these things we have the primacy of divine consciousness over all that exists apart from divine consciousness, and we have the contingency of all that exists apart from divine consciousness.<br /><br />Divide infinity by infinity. The quotient is One God of infinity.<br /><br />Indeed, all of the fundamental mathematical/geometric axioms point to a singular infinity of perfection.Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon"https://www.blogger.com/profile/17918219528532461004noreply@blogger.com