It occurred to me that the sciforums moderators of low intelligence as opposed to the one very intelligent mod
I think that most of the Sciforums moderators seem reasonably intelligent. I certainly have my own complaints about some of them on occasion, but it doesn't concern their native intelligence.
take objection to my use of the term "Reality" any further because it defies conformity.
They quite rightly take exception because you never say anything about reality that makes any sense.
You seem to use 'reality' as an alternative word for your pantheistic concept of 'God'. So right out of the gate, your posts come across to other people like religious preaching.
You often accompany your expressions of your cosmic faith with what appears to be quasi-scientific gibberish often cut-and-pasted from other discussion boards.
Or else you tell us once again about your mystical/psychiatric experiences.
Nothing hangs together coherently, there's never any plausible reason given for anything you say.
They would prefer to allow the ignorant, vile and mediocre thoughts of their fellow atheistic dunces reign supreme.
At least what we write sometimes make sense.
But tell me, how else am I to reach a logically sound argument on God without bringing up this topic? Am I supposed to learn advanced logic from scratch while abandoning the CTMU?
If you want to learn about logic, you need to actually study logic. You don't need to enroll in a university (though having a teacher certainly helps). You can teach yourself. There is no end of instructional material on logic on the internet, including entire textbooks. If you want, I'll give you links to some that I like.
Regarding 'advanced logic', you need to learn basic propositional and predicate logic first. Then you can advance into things like philosophical logic, completeness and consistency proofs, model theory and into the various non-standard logics that have proliferated in the last few decades. It's difficult but rewarding (and most of it is beyond my pay-grade).
'The CTMU' isn't going to teach you logic. My impression is that its author tries to hide the lack of logical coherence in his rhetoric behind a wall of almost incomprehensible technical vocabulary that he trusts that none of his readers will fully understand. So readers can't ever be sure if their difficulty understanding is due to logical deficiencies in the argument itself, or due to their own failure to understand the concepts. It's an intellectual con-game in my opinion.
Obviously, willing me to make less visible my threads on this topic is a dick move.
I think that the readers of Sciforums have reached a general conclusion (perhaps the only thing that everyone here agrees on) that 'the CTMU' is almost certainly bullshit. They don't enjoy having bullshit inflicted on them ceaselessly, and don't want the science and philosophy fora (bad as they are) to become filled with it. But on the tiny likelihood that it isn't bullshit, they want to give you a place to explain and defend your views if you can. That's the 'reality' thread. If you can make a convincing case there. you will probably be welcome to post your stuff elsewhere.
Who are you deem what is best? Speaking of which, JamesR will only continue to do what he does best, label and censor unique and superior thought due to its failing to fall neatly inside the realm of his simple understanding.
If nobody can understand it, how can anyone be sure that it's "unique and superior"? You need to try to explain your ideas in a way that other people can understand.
