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

[Justin Davis]

Wow! Now that's the juice. You just cleared up a few things for me. I'm a novice. But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics. The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants. What's the answer to that one?

The answer to that question is no, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible. The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.

One might as well ask the question can God not be God? Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The logical answer to these questions is no. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.

But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity and is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion God does not exist is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty because it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? A = B?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?

The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic. The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories: equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution. But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of revelational knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives. The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.

The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid. And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.

But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption isn't inherently contradictory. It just is as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.

(By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)

The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.

In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.

For example:

What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?

What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

I think I get it now. When the atheist tries to argue with the proof by demanding an answer to something or questioning the major premise he's actually claiming to know something the rest of us don't. But how can that be right? If he foolishly denies the obvious existence of the rules of logic then he's arguing that there is no basis to claim anything is true in science, math, morality or anything else. So why is he arguing? The only logical option for him is to stop pestering the rest of us and go live in a cave. But that can't be right because we know lots of things in common about math, morality and science, so there has to be a universal basis for how we know these things. He's just lying for some weird reason. That's sick. If he honestly admits that the rules of logic exist, his denial of God's existence presumably means he can give an account for their existence without God. So what is that account? Basically, he's making himself a little god telling everybody else who disagrees with him that he's right and they're wrong, but he's really arguing with God or the idea of God that he admits to be aware of in his denial. This is what you mean when you say that "The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us." So the atheist really has no legitimate basis to demand anything from theists. The theist's premise automatically accounts for a reliable basis for universal knowledge that's absolute, not subjective. The atheist is the one who either way is hinting at something secretively subjective or mysterious, but the more sensible theist just got through saying that the logical rules are absolute. That's a contradiction. The atheist's position is wack either way. Is this right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whether or not there are moral absolutes is a yes or no question.

Your failure to answer yes or no means you don't know.

So which is it? Yes, no, or you don't know.

Still not paying attention.

Try rereading my post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The practitioners of human sacrifice believed that God, or the gods, demanded such behavior.

Not really.

They usually viewed the gods as angry at them for some reason, and decided that a sacrifice of one, or more, persons would be better than the gods killing everyone.

 

[sealybobo]

We don't have to prove God exists for our satisfaction to be met

You can't prove that God does not exist, and that is your issue, not that of the believer.

Great! If you aren't trying to convince anyone your invisible friend is real and you keep it to yourself, we don't have any problems with you.

Remember, we aren't the ones saying you'll go to hell if you don't believe us.

 

[Justin Davis]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

Then the lack of evidence of a God is no different than the lack of evidence of dozens of Gods, or thousands, or trillions.

There is evidence. You just won't admit it. That's sick.

 

[MrDVS1]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Some time ago it came to my attention, that post-resurrection Jesus is a Zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no body temperature, not breathing, walking around with all the unhealed fatal injuries.......if that's not a Zombie I don't know what is.

 

[sealybobo]

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.

I am a probablist. There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know. But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Why are they not equally probable? What makes one position more valid than the other if you insist there is no real evidence either way?

By the way, you just expressed a belief, again. Are you going to claim, again, that you don't have any beliefs about the existence of god?

 

[sealybobo]

Wow! Now that's the juice. You just cleared up a few things for me. I'm a novice. But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics. The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants. What's the answer to that one?

The answer to that question is no, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible. The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.

One might as well ask the question can God not be God? Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The logical answer to these questions is no. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.

But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity and is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion God does not exist is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty because it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? A = B?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?

The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic. The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories: equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution. But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of revelational knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives. The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.

The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid. And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.

But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption isn't inherently contradictory. It just is as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.

(By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)

The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.

In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.

For example:

What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?

What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

What objectively absolute standard of morality?

Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is morally bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your moral code were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .

Why are you asking me that question? Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is? Are you stupid or something? You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true. Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it. No justification required? No explanation required? Really? You're asking me? Do you need me to wipe your ass too? Change your diapers? Blow your nose? Murder is not murder? Rape is not rape? Theft is not theft?

Some truth to what you say. Cons think libs are evil because we murder millions of unborn babies every year and from an atheists perspective, those unborn seeds are no more important than a turtle who gets gobbled up when it first hatches from the egg and starts walking towards the ocean on the sand, all to get eaten at the last second before it makes it to the ocean. Do you cry for the baby turtle? Then why cry for a fetus in the first trimester? I also don't have a problem with late term abortion. It would be sad but you can't force a couple to raise a retarded child especially when you don't want your government to have to help pay for that retard.

And then I think it is evil to go to war for $ and have that many people die over it but you guys seemed to defend the Iraq war even when it was realized that's exactly what Bush (Shell) and Chaney (Haloburton) did. Letting people go hungry because your unregulated free market capitalism says throw the unsold food out before you give it away other wise it will lower prices.

Anyways, I think you cons are evil and I know you guys think we are godless. Guess what? A lot of us are godless. Don't believe a word of it.

 

[Justin Davis]

Wow! Now that's the juice. You just cleared up a few things for me. I'm a novice. But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics. The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants. What's the answer to that one?

The answer to that question is no, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible. The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.

One might as well ask the question can God not be God? Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The logical answer to these questions is no. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.

But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity and is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion God does not exist is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty because it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? A = B?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?

The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic. The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories: equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution. But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of revelational knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives. The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.

The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid. And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.

But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption isn't inherently contradictory. It just is as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.

(By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)

The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.

In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.

For example:

What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?

What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

What objectively absolute standard of morality?

Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is morally bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your moral code were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .

Why are you asking me that question? Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is? Are you stupid or something? You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true. Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it. No justification required? No explanation required? Really? You're asking me? Do you need me to wipe your ass too? Change your diapers? Blow your nose? Murder is not murder? Rape is not rape? Theft is not theft?

I'm asking you a very simple question. What objectively absolute standard of morality?

You made the claim. I want you to detail it.

1. Show us the standard, by examples.
2. Show us that they are objective.
3. Show us that they are absolute.
4. Then,

Show us why HUMANS could not reach such an objective consensus on their own if there were not an invisible, unrevealed, supernatural power in control of human thought.

What the rules of logic tell us when we apply them is the substance youre demanding. M.D.R. answered that question way back in this thread. You're just playing like you don't get the rules of logic, and demand that he repeat what you already know is true. Man, that's sick. You're the one claiming to have some secretive knowledge about why there is common knowledge about lots of things but you pretend not to see the only thing that would account for this at the human level. What hard basis do you have to claim anything? Some of you guys are just crazy or something.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We don't have to prove God exists for our satisfaction to be met

You can't prove that God does not exist, and that is your issue, not that of the believer.

Great! If you aren't trying to convince anyone your invisible friend is real and you keep it to yourself, we don't have any problems with you.

Remember, we aren't the ones saying you'll go to hell if you don't believe us.

No one, sealy, has to keep their belief to themselves.

Understand that and you and your friends won't have any problems.

Same applies to believers of whatever.

 

[sealybobo]

God created science. God is proved BY science every day.

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.

The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.

...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.

The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.

 

[ninja007]

God created science. God is proved BY science every day.

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.

The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.

...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.

The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.

God didn't want it to be that way, but man has free will and sins.

 

[sealybobo]

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Why are they not equally probable? What makes one position more valid than the other if you insist there is no real evidence either way?

By the way, you just expressed a belief, again. Are you going to claim, again, that you don't have any beliefs about the existence of god?

be·lief
biˈlēf/
noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
   • something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
     

     synonyms:

     opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion

     [TBODY] [/TBODY]
   • a religious conviction.
     "Christian beliefs"
     

     synonyms:

     ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; doctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo "traditional beliefs"

     [TBODY] [/TBODY]
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

you are right

 

[sealybobo]

God created science. God is proved BY science every day.

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.

The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.

...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.

The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.

God didn't want it to be that way, but man has free will and sins.

From what we hear about Adam, man can't be trusted. From what we hear about the times of Noah, every human on earth except Noah and his family were pieces of shit and needed to be cleansed from the planet. Theists talk about Soddom & Gamora and say the world is going to shit and the end days are coming because we are turning away from god.

So in every situation, man sucks and we are doomed again one day when the rapture comes. We failed in the past, are failing now and will fail in the future. IT IS WRITTEN!

Anyways, if man is so bad, what makes you believe the corrupt churches and their pedophile priests? They could have made the entire thing up 1900 years ago. In fact it looks as though that's what happened. Jesus didn't write the bible and neither did any of the 12. Even if they did, that's a pretty small cult of only 12 people. Talking snakes, 350 Noah, Virgin births, rising from the dead, ghosts, angels, devils, exorcists. Do you people hear yourselves?

 

[ninja007]

God created science. God is proved BY science every day.

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.

The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.

...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.

The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.

God didn't want it to be that way, but man has free will and sins.

From what we hear about Adam, man can't be trusted. From what we hear about the times of Noah, every human on earth except Noah and his family were pieces of shit and needed to be cleansed from the planet. Theists talk about Soddom & Gamora and say the world is going to shit and the end days are coming because we are turning away from god.

So in every situation, man sucks and we are doomed again one day when the rapture comes. We failed in the past, are failing now and will fail in the future. IT IS WRITTEN!

Anyways, if man is so bad, what makes you believe the corrupt churches and their pedophile priests? They could have made the entire thing up 1900 years ago. In fact it looks as though that's what happened. Jesus didn't write the bible and neither did any of the 12. Even if they did, that's a pretty small cult of only 12 people. Talking snakes, 350 Noah, Virgin births, rising from the dead, ghosts, angels, devils, exorcists. Do you people hear yourselves?

The Holy Spirit (God) wrote the Bible friend.

 

[Justin Davis]

Are you saying something must have made the universe? Then what made the thing that made the universe? You can't have it both ways. If something must have made us, something must have made what made us. And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god. Who are god's parents?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present? The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent. His existence isn't contingent on anything. Is this something you do a lot? Use premises that you don't understand for arguments? Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians. You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause? Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause? Has something always existed or not? It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you. Does the universe exist or not? Do you exist?

 

[sealybobo]

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

Just a couple of points here. Despite cataclysmic events, this particular planet is certainly not hostile to life. The place has been teeming with life for quite some time.

There is also a basic flaw in an argument that a universe being hostile to life means it is not designed. That presupposes the intent of the designer. Life may very well be a byproduct the designer considers an annoyance, like a house with termites.

True but this planet is not much more than a grain of sand compared to all of the universe. Again whom among us wise to enough to know what is out there beyond our feeble ability to explore or investigate? It is as naïve to believe that we have all the science we will ever have or know as it is to believe that scientists 100 or 200 hundred years ago knew and understand more than a small fraction of what we know now.

Of course a universe hostile to life could be as much by design as one teeming with life put here with a purpose. And both could be by happenstance.

The anti-scientist type shrugs and says there is no way to know and lacks the curiosity or intellect to even wonder. He/she might even make snarky, unkind, or rude comments to those who do wonder.

IMO the science religionist looks at the most popular theories/conclusions and says that is the way it is and nobody with a brain would even challenge it.

And some of us do observe the complexities, the symmetry, the unanswered questions and reason that an intelligence capable of designing the universe we live in could also be that spark of wonder and curiosity and ability to comprehend that intelligence.

I heard the other day that we might exist so that the universe can know itself, or something like that. That's deep.

I wouldn't consider myself a science religious or I wouldn't think one would say their theories can't be challenged. That doesn't sound like science to me. What a science religious might do is reject organized religions nonsensical stories.

And I do notice a lot of "christians" admit all the stories in the bible are not real historical events. They admit they are just stories. Do you?

But then even if they are, then I ask them if Mary was a virgin and Jesus rose from the dead and they say they do believe those stories are historical events.

Either way they believe things that can't possibly be true. Unless you can show us scientifically how He turned 5 loaves and 2 fish into thousands of fish and pieces of bread. In fact, there were twelve baskets of leftovers.

 

[sealybobo]

God created science. God is proved BY science every day.

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.

The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.

...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.

The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.

God didn't want it to be that way, but man has free will and sins.

From what we hear about Adam, man can't be trusted. From what we hear about the times of Noah, every human on earth except Noah and his family were pieces of shit and needed to be cleansed from the planet. Theists talk about Soddom & Gamora and say the world is going to shit and the end days are coming because we are turning away from god.

So in every situation, man sucks and we are doomed again one day when the rapture comes. We failed in the past, are failing now and will fail in the future. IT IS WRITTEN!

Anyways, if man is so bad, what makes you believe the corrupt churches and their pedophile priests? They could have made the entire thing up 1900 years ago. In fact it looks as though that's what happened. Jesus didn't write the bible and neither did any of the 12. Even if they did, that's a pretty small cult of only 12 people. Talking snakes, 350 Noah, Virgin births, rising from the dead, ghosts, angels, devils, exorcists. Do you people hear yourselves?

The Holy Spirit (God) wrote the Bible friend.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

 

[sealybobo]

Are you saying something must have made the universe? Then what made the thing that made the universe? You can't have it both ways. If something must have made us, something must have made what made us. And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god. Who are god's parents?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present? The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent. His existence isn't contingent on anything. Is this something you do a lot? Use premises that you don't understand for arguments? Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians. You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause? Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause? Has something always existed or not? It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you. Does the universe exist or not? Do you exist?

All I know is this. None of the stories in any of the Abraham religions are true. Are you a Christian, Jew or Muslim? Then you believe people lived to be 350 years old, god talked to them, through snakes, Jonah survived 3 days in the belly of a whale, angels, devils,

Just like you don't believe Zeus exists, right?

Other than that, I don't know what your point was. It went right over my head. Do you believe in any particular god? Because all you did was reply like you caught me in some fuck up, but then I read on and you forget to put how exactly I screwed up. What was the "gocha" moment? I can't wait to find out.

Is it that the whole god is eternal thing or the thing where you theists can't believe we came from nothing? The first cause argument? Please explain because I have no idea what is going on around me. It must be pretty lonely being god that he's so bored he's always watching all of us and he gets so angry when people don't worship him. Why doesn't he pay us a visit like he use to?