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

[Justin Davis]

I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.

I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.

Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor. If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living. I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier. I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical. Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you. Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.

The easiest way to help someone who's struggling with it is to ask them to give you an argument, any argument they can think of which in their minds refutes it. Then show them why their argument actually serves as a premise for an argument that proves it. Typically, the first objection you get is the academic objection of the illusory informal fallacy of begging the question. That objection proves that the premise is an axiom just like 2 + 2 = 4 once they see how that objection is inherently self-negating and also proves the premise is true. If they see that but are still struggling, ask them to give you another one, something more substantial, direct; then show them how that kind of argument doesn't work either. Once they get that, they should see why the premise would necessarily hold up universally against all comers.

Essentially, the transcendental argument is the in-depth, formal proof of the understanding that the potential substance of the God idea cannot be logically ruled out; it's the deeper understanding of the fundamental imperative of the problem of origin.

Okay, I never made that connection until now, but, yeah, I see it now. Cool.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism. Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing. That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions. Again the principle of identity at work.

Have you shaved your head yet?

Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum? I'm a Christian. So is Rawlings.
Despite QW's make up as you go along whatever, it's in the Bible. Lots of mature Christians with a calling in apologetics know this. Most of the rest understand it in the doctrinal form of the Logos, while we all understand it in terms of relationship with Christ. It's not a secrete. Some people have a better understanding of it than others due to longer experience or calling.

Are you, Hollie and G.T. all bald? You all pretty much read off the same page.

 

[Justin Davis]

I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.

I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.

Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor. If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living. I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier. I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical. Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you. Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.

What's humorous (in a mordant sort of way), is to watch the pompous blowhard rattle on through multiple paragraphs which are not logically connected and never manage to make a logical progression of ideas.

It's pitiable. The bloviating Is just a thinly veiled attempt at proselytizing but the confused, rambling, stuttering and mumbling is somehow supposed to be persuasive?

You're playing shell games on yourself again. Anyone who understands the argument can see that the logic flows perfectly and follow him without any problem at all. What you see as something changing is actually just more of the direct extrapolations of the same thing. You still don't see why the argument is necessarily true though, though you could if you thought about it, anyone can easily. You're still in the cave afraid to come out into the real world. That's your problem, not ours.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.

I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.

Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor. If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living. I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier. I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical. Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you. Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.

What's humorous (in a mordant sort of way), is to watch the pompous blowhard rattle on through multiple paragraphs which are not logically connected and never manage to make a logical progression of ideas.

It's pitiable. The bloviating Is just a thinly veiled attempt at proselytizing but the confused, rambling, stuttering and mumbling is somehow supposed to be persuasive?

You're playing shell games on yourself again. Anyone who understands the argument can see that the logic flows perfectly and follow him without any problem at all. What you see as something changing is actually just more of the direct extrapolations of the same thing. You still don't see why the argument is necessarily true though, though you could if you thought about it, anyone can easily. You're still in the cave afraid to come out into the real world. That's your problem, not ours.

Actually, that was dblack playing the shell games on himself. Hollie just likes the same game. Their posts sort of blur together. It's all that baldness and same-page reading you talked about. Somewhere in the world there's a pile of discarded hair of different shades, albeit, mingled together inside the same file 13.

If they were to ever stop all the stuttering and mumbling, they might be able to see what is right in front of them, but that's the thing about religious fanatics, dogma is dogma, and dogma's all they got. Disabusing them of it is like trying to take a bone from an untrained, full-grown German Shepherd. Don't try it unless you know the animal has been vaccinated for rabies.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism. Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing. That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions. Again the principle of identity at work.

The hand of God.

Right now all the baldies who have read this post are reading the supposed God in the gaps fallacy off that same page.

 

[Justin Davis]

The hand of God.

Right now all the baldies who have read this post are reading the supposed God in the gaps fallacy off that same page.

And that would be the hand, of course.

 

[Hollie]

I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.

I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.

Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor. If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living. I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier. I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical. Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you. Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.

What's humorous (in a mordant sort of way), is to watch the pompous blowhard rattle on through multiple paragraphs which are not logically connected and never manage to make a logical progression of ideas.

It's pitiable. The bloviating Is just a thinly veiled attempt at proselytizing but the confused, rambling, stuttering and mumbling is somehow supposed to be persuasive?

You're playing shell games on yourself again. Anyone who understands the argument can see that the logic flows perfectly and follow him without any problem at all. What you see as something changing is actually just more of the direct extrapolations of the same thing. You still don't see why the argument is necessarily true though, though you could if you thought about it, anyone can easily. You're still in the cave afraid to come out into the real world. That's your problem, not ours.

Actually, that was dblack playing the shell games on himself. Hollie just likes the same game. Their posts sort of blur together. It's all that baldness and same-page reading you talked about. Somewhere in the world there's a pile of discarded hair of different shades, albeit, mingled together inside the same file 13.

If they were to ever stop all the stuttering and mumbling, they might be able to see what is right in front of them, but that's the thing about religious fanatics, dogma is dogma, and dogma's all they got. Disabusing them of it is like trying to take a bone from an untrained, full-grown German Shepherd. Don't try it unless you know the animal has been vaccinated for rabies.

Let's be honest, here. Aside from your obvious bluster and pontificating, you've been unable (and to avoid embarrassment), haven't even attempted to address the comments in direct refutation to your pompous, time wasting stuttering and mumbling.

You're now relegated to pointless drivel.

 

[Justin Davis]

MD continues to be a liar as to what ive said done or conceded

Lost all respect.

TAG's first premise is that without god there cannot be knowledge.

Since it doesn't have a proof of its own, it fails. TAG begs the question.

You cannot logically or otherwise assert that god is necessary FOR knowledge without ruling out other explanations ALSO WITH LOGIC PROOFS where the premises are absolute.

Where is the logical proof that knowledge can't "just exist?"

Not a lofty explanation about why it's unlikely, an explanation of why it CANNOT be, via ABSOLUTE premises.

Can't do it? Then you can't logically rule it out and accept TAG's first premise.

And that's just ONE alternate possibility, of the MANY.

Well if you believe god created all life and everything we see then of course you would also believe that without god there would be no knowledge either.

But first you have to prove there is a god to prove that without him there wouldn't be life let alone knowledge.

Sentence #2 eggggggggsackleeeee

And you both just proved the argument true again! For atheists, you guys sure have a serious God complex, though Rawlings and I have already shown you guys why this line of logic is self-negating and proves the argument true. G.T. likes going in circles. Like that file 13 Rawlings wrote about, now I'm thinking that somewhere in the world there's a well-worn path around a mulberry tree littered with cigarette butts and many crumpled notes with arguments scribbled on them against the TAG, the desperate obsession a someone trying to convince himself of something that has a problem with it that he can't quite keep his finger on long enough for it to sink. I think that's why he keeps changing his mind. But at least he has sealybobo to keep him company.

 

[Hollie]

Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism. Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing. That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions. Again the principle of identity at work.

The hand of God.

Right now all the baldies who have read this post are reading the supposed God in the gaps fallacy off that same page.

Right now, others are watching as your pointless arguments are relegated to childish name-calling.

 

[Hollie]

Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism. Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing. That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions. Again the principle of identity at work.

Have you shaved your head yet?

Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum? I'm a Christian. So is Rawlings.
Despite QW's make up as you go along whatever, it's in the Bible. Lots of mature Christians with a calling in apologetics know this. Most of the rest understand it in the doctrinal form of the Logos, while we all understand it in terms of relationship with Christ. It's not a secrete. Some people have a better understanding of it than others due to longer experience or calling.

Are you, Hollie and G.T. all bald? You all pretty much read off the same page.

You could have been honest and admitted your purpose in this thread was to proselytize. I think that has been obvious but to represent that you had a functioning argument for supernatural gods and spirit realms not connected directly with your extremist beliefs is dishonest.

 

[G.T.]

Tag begs the question, bad argument.

Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.

 

[Justin Davis]

hat I would add MD is that this CAN be proven.
1. by continuing the process WITHOUT insulting anyone as I fear you do without realizing it makes the difference.
it is sort of like a contrapositive proof, where you present the conclusion (which here is the OPPOSITE of what your objectors believe) and then remove all the subsequent arguments and examples that come up. In pure logic, this is not the usual way to do a contrapositive proof; the usual way is to show that a FIXED contradiction comes up that is universally true in all cases, so once you prove that contradiction is inevitable and universal, this proves it across the board. With God there is an infinite number and variations on the contradictions that arise for each person, so technically you can never prove them all as a pattern for all people.

The problem with what you're saying here is that Rawlings without speaking to the value of the ideas of posters that served as a basis to move the discussion along, point by point already laid down the foundation and systematically built on it from the beginning early in this thread while most others were blurting unsupported opinions out of nowhere about anything that came to mind. He started with a simple, step-by-step presentation of the pertinent first principles of human thought, onto the sketched-out though bare bones presentation of the imperatives of the problem of origin, then the explication of the universal principle of identity from the laws of human thought, then the ultimate idea of infinity in the principle. Then he proceeded to address each of the classical arguments explaining why they hold up as rational and empirical evidentiary proofs for God's existence while fleshing out the relevant imperatives for each as he went along. He explained what these arguments really, which aren't absolutely proofs but proofs of evidence that powerfully point to God and destroy the nonsense of atheism. He saved the TAG argument for last that is the one that is most powerful and really reveals the startling facts of the matter regarding the principle of identity and the five things which drives really drives it all home.

The reason I'm able to see the pattern is because these are the same things I've been studying on my own for the last several months. I almost this thread off after reading a bunch of posts going nowhere when I ran into his first post. Man alive, all cylinders.

After reading the first several posts I went back and copied and pasted from the beginning and so on into Word to keep studying more and more until I got it a really good handle on each. So I see the pattern to his progression. I've learned more from him in the last several days than in all the months before.
What started happening though is that some started getting bent out of shape over his ideas on things because they flew in the face of their cherished subjective beliefs of habit and they couldn’t counter what he was saying. Even I understand the psychology of that. QW went so far as to start trying to tells us that Rawlings' understanding of logic was all wrong with statements he made that were all wrong. I was the first to get pissed at QW, not Rawlings, and I did get emotional about it in a counterproductive way. But finally Rawlings did have to grab him by the scruff and kick him hard because he was getting in the way with lies. QW left when he could no longer get away with it because his garbage became so obvious. I studied up on constructive logic because I was fooled by QW at first too, not that Rawlings was wrong but that QW knew other things the right way. The first signs that he didn't know what mattered was the silly things he started saying about the relationship between science and logic and philosophy, and nothing he said about the things in the bible or about classical logica and constructive logic could possibly be true. He got more and more absurd with each post.

That's the background you may not be aware of.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism. Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing. That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions. Again the principle of identity at work.

Have you shaved your head yet?

Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum? I'm a Christian. So is Rawlings.
Despite QW's make up as you go along whatever, it's in the Bible. Lots of mature Christians with a calling in apologetics know this. Most of the rest understand it in the doctrinal form of the Logos, while we all understand it in terms of relationship with Christ. It's not a secrete. Some people have a better understanding of it than others due to longer experience or calling.

Are you, Hollie and G.T. all bald? You all pretty much read off the same page.

You could have been honest and admitted your purpose in this thread was to proselytize. I think that has been obvious but to represent that you had a functioning argument for supernatural gods and spirit realms not connected directly with your extremist beliefs is dishonest.

Voices in your head again?

 

[Hollie]

Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism. Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing. That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions. Again the principle of identity at work.

Have you shaved your head yet?

Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum? I'm a Christian. So is Rawlings.
Despite QW's make up as you go along whatever, it's in the Bible. Lots of mature Christians with a calling in apologetics know this. Most of the rest understand it in the doctrinal form of the Logos, while we all understand it in terms of relationship with Christ. It's not a secrete. Some people have a better understanding of it than others due to longer experience or calling.

Are you, Hollie and G.T. all bald? You all pretty much read off the same page.

You could have been honest and admitted your purpose in this thread was to proselytize. I think that has been obvious but to represent that you had a functioning argument for supernatural gods and spirit realms not connected directly with your extremist beliefs is dishonest.

Voices in your head again?

No. Just an observation taken from your comments. You and the guy you're failing your Pom Poms for should realize that you come across as the worst examples of the feverish, sweaty, hair-on-fire bible thumpers who are as dishonest a bunch as they're are.

 

[Justin Davis]

Tag begs the question, bad argument.

Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.

Psst. That's the whole point. Any counterargument does prove them wrong. Yes of course it does presuppose God's existence and then you went onto make arguments why that's unreasonable only to have your arguments destroy themselves. You got it the first time around and defaulted to science. I know what you did. You're not fooling me. I also see what you can see about these mew arguments of yours. You know why they fail, you just like the attention you get from sealybobo and Hollie all the while knowing these new arguments fail and are bogus too and why.

I get your psychology.

 

[Hollie]

Tag begs the question, bad argument.

Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.

Psst. That's the whole point. Any counterargument does prove them wrong. Yes of course it does presuppose God's existence and then you went onto make arguments why that's unreasonable only to have your arguments destroy themselves. You got it the first time around and defaulted to science. I know what you did. You're not fooling me. I also see what you can see about these mew arguments of yours. You know why they fail, you just like the attention you get from sealybobo and Hollie all the while knowing these new arguments fail and are bogus too and why.

I get your psychology.

So... You admit you're argument is a fraud yet you choose to continue promotion of fraud.

Lovely, lovely folks you fundamentalist Christians.

 

[Justin Davis]

Doctrine is one aspect of religion.

IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.

It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.

You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question. I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all. But it is a "sound" that one must slow down long enough to "hear."

By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.

 

[G.T.]

Tag begs the question, bad argument.

Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.

Psst. That's the whole point. Any counterargument does prove them wrong. Yes of course it does presuppose God's existence and then you went onto make arguments why that's unreasonable only to have your arguments destroy themselves. You got it the first time around and defaulted to science. I know what you did. You're not fooling me. I also see what you can see about these mew arguments of yours. You know why they fail, you just like the attention you get from sealybobo and Hollie all the while knowing these new arguments fail and are bogus too and why.

I get your psychology.

Youre an idiot.

You cant make a rational argument for something based on premises that are not themselves proven.

Ask a fucking five year old to.explain it to one of you dopes.

And again, arguing against it does not make it so. For that to be true, you AGAIN have to beg the question.

Do you need to be taught why begging the question is an invalid way to attempt a logical proof of something?

You're in effect saying

Proof of god:

God exists, so knowledge has to come from god

Knowledge exists

Therefore god exists!


Only a complete jackass doesn't see what's wrong with that, logically. I.e. you two dorks.

 

[G.T.]

Tag begs the question, bad argument.

Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.

Psst. That's the whole point. Any counterargument does prove them wrong. Yes of course it does presuppose God's existence and then you went onto make arguments why that's unreasonable only to have your arguments destroy themselves. You got it the first time around and defaulted to science. I know what you did. You're not fooling me. I also see what you can see about these mew arguments of yours. You know why they fail, you just like the attention you get from sealybobo and Hollie all the while knowing these new arguments fail and are bogus too and why.

I get your psychology.

So... You admit you're argument is a fraud yet you choose to continue promotion of fraud.

Lovely, lovely folks you fundamentalist Christians.

I think its more likely they have no clue why using a definition to prove ITSELF is retarded.

 

[G.T.]

Sye ten: jackass
Eric hovind: jackass
W.l. Craig: jackass
M.d. Rawlings: jackass
Justin Davis: embarrassment