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

[G.T.]

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

I think you don't understand something about TAG.

TAG boasts of BEING proof.

Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.

TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.

Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.

GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.

But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.

Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
what can you suggest we change the starting point to?

It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.

What do you suggest and let's ask MD.

Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.

Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.

I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...

Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently exist a logical PROOF for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.

If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.

I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.

Dear GT

1. First of all no, it doesn't follow that once someone sees enough proof of God to believe it then they become religious.
a. my bf understands what is meant by God and believes it, but is not Christian, not religious and stays secular
b. the patient in Scott Peck's book who received spiritual healing to get rid of demonic schizophrenic voices
dropped her new age religion and went into science and medicine
c. my friend Daron who received spiritual healing still rejects Christianity as an atheist.
he simply does not relate to or like that, and has a negative "allergic" reaction to it, just
like if someone does not like Madonna, Miley or their kind of music and stays away from it.

You do not necessarily "magically convert" to anything.
It is just adding on understanding of what other people mean and experience,
to your own ways and understanding so you expand and include more people and views.

My friend Olivia does all that spiritual healing and God tells her things etc.
but that doesn't change my experience and how I process information and get insights.

I am not going to suddenly convert and start experiencing God the way someone else does.

So my bf and I both talk about and experience life in secular terms just like before.

2. yes I agree not to push any proof that others cannot follow for whatever reason.

I'd like to see what we could start with.

If you and Hollie would like to see proof that secular people like us can
understand spiritual healing and it proves that Christian teachings are real,
but it doesn't make us become religious, we can use the spiritual healing proof for that purpose, too.

To end the rejections and objections on all sides.

if we can demonstrate it works better to prove spiritual healing
and that helps more people anyway
then more Christians would use that proof and quit this circular stuff that isn't making any sense!

I don't know what spiritual healing is, and I couldn't begin believing it until I witnessed it with my own two eyes and any tricks or possible mis-drawn conclusions were ALL ruled out. Soundly.

For me, personally, extraordinary things require extraordinary proof. I don't accept something that can *possibly* be just a coincidence, as proof. That's too loose.

I don't accept something with other, also NOT ruled out explanations, as proof. That's too loose.


If my daughter were supposed to die and was given two weeks to live, and I happened to pray out of desperation (not because of sudden belief, but because "what if" ), and then she didn't die but was somehow cured?

I would not then begin believing.

Other possibilities are not 100% ruled out. Emotionalism or awe do not and can not replace my rationalism.

And maybe sometimes, I wish they could. But they can't.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

...
Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

Dear M.D. Rawlings:
I think you are nitpicking on terms.
Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.

What this REALLY means is
"proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"

You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
"logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"

The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!

God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.

Once someone sees God = something false and negative
then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
define God = something else

So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
is to AGREE what the variables stand for.

When I speak with a Buddhist
God = may equal Wisdom

With some Christians
God = love and with some God = truth
Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice

Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
I find that
God = truth and
Jesus = justice
works better to align with what they already believe in.

So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.

You may have to set the starting values
differently for some people, rather than
using only one God = generic global identity

Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
because that is the most common,
and you will reach the largest audience, fine.

What about someone who is on Saxophone.
what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
play and learn the same song?

If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
it to be adjusted to G.

Some people aren't using a major key
but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!

it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
their key and music may be different, too!

I love you, Emily, but I'm not nitpicking over terms. My terms are the objectively refined terms of accuracy and precision.

If persons wish to use other terms that work, that's fine with me. A rose is a rose. Unlike some, I do not make demands or gratuitously quibble over terms, ever! (And right now those who do make it a habit of quibbling over obvious things are rolling their eyes, because they roll their eyes over everything, except what matters) Use whatever terms you want. I reserve the right to show whether or not the terms being used by others are valid or accurate with regard to the factual and logical concerns about any given objective. Inaccurate, imprecise or ambiguous terms lead to errors in logic and fact. As long as the terms being used are in fact objectively and definitively accurate and mutually understood, that's great. There should be no debate over any of this.

Otherwise, I'm easy that way in spite of what others have falsely implied in some sense or another.

Frankly, I don’t even know why you're saying this to me of all people. Me? I'm trying to use terms that are the most logically and objectively accurate, which means I'm trying to use terms that are definitively unambiguous and unbiased. The only things I can think of that have you saying this are the following:

1. dblack quibbled with me over the term cosmological order after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using his terms! I don't know why he went postal.

2. G.T., quibbled with me over the term cognition. Are you kidding me? In this case, cognition is the only term in the English language that comprehensively denotes the thing that is meant. Consciousness would be the second best term in the English language, but not appropriate in this case because it leaves necessary connotations that are meant out.

3. Foxfyre suggested that I'm using terms, without a clue as to what my premise is, not for the sake of being objectively and comprehensively accurate and precise, but for some small and petty reason. That's a disgustingly false allegation. It's mealy-mouthed bullshit.

4. Blurring the line between logic and science and what they're used for, blurring the line between philosophy and science, saying that philosophy is bullshit, saying that we don't need the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological definitions and standards of justification that only philosophy--not science!--can provide, saying that philosophy does not have primacy over or does not precede science: leads to the idiocy that there is no such thing as objectively demonstrable facts of logic or objectively demonstrable facts of science.

That's factually and logically false. I will not accept that and neither should any other pragmatically commonsensical person.

Logic is used to prove or disprove things. More to the point, logic is used to divulge what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.

The scientific method is used to verify or falsify notions about empirical things that the available evidentiary data and logic appear to recommend at any given time.

Folks have been muddling the pertinent facts regarding these two things in order to make arguments that are subjective and false. I will not tolerate that.

Word.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

...
Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

Dear M.D. Rawlings:
I think you are nitpicking on terms.
Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.

What this REALLY means is
"proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"

You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
"logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"

The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!

God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.

Once someone sees God = something false and negative
then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
define God = something else

So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
is to AGREE what the variables stand for.

When I speak with a Buddhist
God = may equal Wisdom

With some Christians
God = love and with some God = truth
Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice

Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
I find that
God = truth and
Jesus = justice
works better to align with what they already believe in.

So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.

You may have to set the starting values
differently for some people, rather than
using only one God = generic global identity

Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
because that is the most common,
and you will reach the largest audience, fine.

What about someone who is on Saxophone.
what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
play and learn the same song?

If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
it to be adjusted to G.

Some people aren't using a major key
but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!

it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
their key and music may be different, too!

These posts explain precisely why I am not nitpicking regarding the distinctions between logic and science. What Hollie and G.T. are saying is unacceptable! This is no small thing. Get this wrong and you destroy both logic an science.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10024511/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10025118/

 

[G.T.]

smell that?

it's snake oil.

 

[Justin Davis]

You know several theists have responded to the kind of statement you just made with derision because, of course, if God exists he wouldn't be something like a tree or water or a rock or a star. In other words, He wouldn't be a Being of a material substance, and that's right. He wouldn't be. We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent. Recall?

But, really, that's okay. We all forget things sometimes about the things we're thinking about. No big deal. There's no reason to call you stupid or anything like that, which is why I've never said that question is stupid. That would be ill-mannered and hypocritical, because I know that I often forget things about the things we all have to think about.

On the contrary, that's still a very good question, truly! It gets at the very crux of the matter: the immediate issue is not whether or not God exists!

The immediate issue is what does exist for sure and what is objectively and universally true about the things that exist for sure and about the ideas that we have about their existence.


Unless everything is an illusion, including this notion we have about objective logic, the following things exist for sure and are true about the things that exist for sure:

The Five Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exists, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Let's add two more things to that list now.

6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Looky here. Now we have "The Seven Things".
____________________________________________

Note: For those who may still have any unnecessary, lingering doubts about #6, see Posts #2519, #2518 and #2479, in that order.

COMMONSENSE!

 

[Justin Davis]

smell that?

it's snake oil.

NO COMMONSENSE!

 

[G.T.]

smell that?

it's snake oil.

NO COMMONSENSE!

Is it common sense that common sense is two words, jackass?

 

[Justin Davis]

It is an axiom!

I've tried a number times, civilly, to help you see the obvious.

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?

That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.

2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.

You guys keep thinking # 2, when the only thing logicians are talking is #1.

And the ultimate cognition is a question: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?

No, what IS controversial is stating we were "Created," dim bulb.

NO COMMONSENSE! God = Creator. You are a pathetic liar.

 

[Justin Davis]

smell that?

it's snake oil.

NO COMMONSENSE!

Is it common sense that common sense is two words, jackass?

NO COMMONSENSE!

 

[G.T.]

Justin must have dropped his binky, or MD forgot his bipolar meds.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

I think you don't understand something about TAG.

TAG boasts of BEING proof.

Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.

TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.

Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.

GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.

But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.

Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
what can you suggest we change the starting point to?

It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.

What do you suggest and let's ask MD.

Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.

Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.

I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...

Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently exist a logical PROOF for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.

If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.

I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.

More bullshit.


Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) 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.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

 

[G.T.]

Repeating the same debunked bullshit over and over make you feel better, charlatan?

 

[emilynghiem]

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

I think you don't understand something about TAG.

TAG boasts of BEING proof.

Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.

TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.

Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.

GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.

But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.

Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
what can you suggest we change the starting point to?

It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.

What do you suggest and let's ask MD.

Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.

Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.

I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...

Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently exist a logical PROOF for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.

If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.

I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.

More bullshit.


Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) 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.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

That's ONE way to frame it where it can be proven by logic.

Here's another way of framing it that covers both your way and other ways you leave out:

Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle

"Facts vs. faith"

Regarding "Duck Dynasty, meet Pope Francis" (Page B9, Tuesday), E. J Dionne's column regarding fundamental truth was on point - almost. Like most non-math guys, he is not aware of Professor Kurt Godel's incompleteness and undecidability theorems. With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).

The only things we can be relatively sure of are that we must keep our science and religion separate - the world is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the Earth - contrary to medieval truth. Religion is based on faith; science is based on best applied observations and math.
....

James A. Babb, Friendswood
================================

There are TWO reasons to start with this approach, leaving it open that it is POSSIBLE
"God cannot be proven or disproven" (because God represents something infinite or the
source of all knowledge and laws) that is beyond finite human scope and ability to symbolize WITHOUT FAITH.

1. First by NOT ASSUMING the conclusion but leaving it OPEN to take steps to prove
where the "contradictions arise" you ALLOW for people who don't trust this "assuming the assertion" business

2. Secondly it is possible to go through the ENTIRE process of RESOLVING those SAME contradictions
WITHOUT imposing or agreeing on either position: either God can or cannot be proven or disproven to exist
OR without imposing or agreeing that all things we perceive in the world either "always existed" or "have a beginning source"

NONE of those suppositions is necessary
in order to RESOLVE the conflicts or contradictions that arise anyway!

So why not just address the conflicts, and proceed forward, until a conclusion/agreement is reached
no matter what form or results that comes out as.

Let's just RESOLVE the contradictions!

This issue of identifying and resolving conflicts and objections IS the necessary process in ANY proof of ANY format,
so why not do that as the common steps and factors?

MD if you are trying to get the kids to agree to get in the car,
does it matter if you are arguing if the park is to the left or to the right?
Just get in the car, let's drive there and see where the park is!

you can sit in the driveway all day, arguing about how to get to the park,
or you can get it and get there and let the process prove itself.

I say let's agree enough on where we agree to go,
and take it one step at a time.

If someone says NIX to something, I say let's resolve that
and try something that DOESN'T require pushing into a NO.

Let's go with the YES options and shape the path that way.

Can we remain UNCONDITIONAL?

And just stick with conditions that all people agree to include as choices,
and leave out any they don't agree to include as choices.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is an axiom!

I've tried a number times, civilly, to help you see the obvious.

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?

That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.

2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.

You guys keep thinking # 2, when the only thing logicians are talking is #1.

And the ultimate cognition is a question: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?

No, what IS controversial is stating we were "Created," dim bulb.

NO COMMONSENSE! God = Creator. You are a pathetic liar.

Objection, your honor.

God can be set to equate = Wisdom or Truth
God = Life or Universe (I use God = Universe to talk with my Atheist friend to
say that the Universe is trying to work with him, and help him when I mean the Natural process is working.
I DON't have to limit God to just "Creator")

Can we agree that God can be Wisdom,
God can be Love, God can be Life or Nature.

And we can still reach agreement by
aligning these things as taking about the
Collective combination or union of all these meanings of God.

if you look at Islam they list 99 names for God
including
Justice (which I equate with one of the meanings of Jesus while salvation is another name)

God's Justice is not the same thing as God's Truth
but these are both attributes associated with God.

God as Creator is another role but not the only one.

Can we agree to leave it open if people
see the forces of Life as "the Universe" causing things to happen?

Can we agree that the point is to establish the
"Kingdom of God" whether or not we agree if God means Creator or God is the Creation itself.

 

[emilynghiem]

Repeating the same debunked bullshit over and over make you feel better, charlatan?

No, it doesn't work to "KEEP repeating" the same thing
and neither does it work to "KEEP rejecting it" without offering a "better alternative"
that MD agrees to replace it with.

Hey, I have an idea.

If GT doesn't agree to this approach can we try something he does agree to use?
If MD doesn't agree to dropping this approach can we try amending or substituting something
that would help remove the reasons for objecting to and rejecting his approach?

What about that!

LISTENING to when people say Yay or Nay
and TRYING to come up with something that gets more Yay out of more people.

Might that get us somewhere instead of NO back and forth, repeating ad infinitum?

If a kid will not eat zucchini but will throw it across the room,
can't we substitute a different vegetable the kids will eat?
Does that require rocket science to figure out?

If you don't want the kid throwing their binky then don't keep giving it back.

 

[emilynghiem]

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?

I think you don't understand something about TAG.

TAG boasts of BEING proof.

Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.

TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.

Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.

GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.

But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.

Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
what can you suggest we change the starting point to?

It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.

What do you suggest and let's ask MD.

Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.

Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.

I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...

Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently exist a logical PROOF for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.

If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.

I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.

Dear GT

1. First of all no, it doesn't follow that once someone sees enough proof of God to believe it then they become religious.
a. my bf understands what is meant by God and believes it, but is not Christian, not religious and stays secular
b. the patient in Scott Peck's book who received spiritual healing to get rid of demonic schizophrenic voices
dropped her new age religion and went into science and medicine
c. my friend Daron who received spiritual healing still rejects Christianity as an atheist.
he simply does not relate to or like that, and has a negative "allergic" reaction to it, just
like if someone does not like Madonna, Miley or their kind of music and stays away from it.

You do not necessarily "magically convert" to anything.
It is just adding on understanding of what other people mean and experience,
to your own ways and understanding so you expand and include more people and views.

My friend Olivia does all that spiritual healing and God tells her things etc.
but that doesn't change my experience and how I process information and get insights.

I am not going to suddenly convert and start experiencing God the way someone else does.

So my bf and I both talk about and experience life in secular terms just like before.

2. yes I agree not to push any proof that others cannot follow for whatever reason.

I'd like to see what we could start with.

If you and Hollie would like to see proof that secular people like us can
understand spiritual healing and it proves that Christian teachings are real,
but it doesn't make us become religious, we can use the spiritual healing proof for that purpose, too.

To end the rejections and objections on all sides.

if we can demonstrate it works better to prove spiritual healing
and that helps more people anyway
then more Christians would use that proof and quit this circular stuff that isn't making any sense!

I don't know what spiritual healing is, and I couldn't begin believing it until I witnessed it with my own two eyes and any tricks or possible mis-drawn conclusions were ALL ruled out. Soundly.

For me, personally, extraordinary things require extraordinary proof. I don't accept something that can *possibly* be just a coincidence, as proof. That's too loose.

I don't accept something with other, also NOT ruled out explanations, as proof. That's too loose.


If my daughter were supposed to die and was given two weeks to live, and I happened to pray out of desperation (not because of sudden belief, but because "what if" ), and then she didn't die but was somehow cured?

I would not then begin believing.

Other possibilities are not 100% ruled out. Emotionalism or awe do not and can not replace my rationalism.

And maybe sometimes, I wish they could. But they can't.

Dear GT: If you are willing to consider this as a scientific workable angle,
I can send you the two books I give out free that best explain how it is natural and not something
that negates REJECTS or takes risks with science or medicine. It is not like "false faith healing"
where you reject the doctor and try to magically heal something by praying or commanding.

It is not like you think, it is not replacing medicine, but working alongside it.

Still even working WITH science and medicine there is enough results out there
to show that the PROCESS of spiritual healing can help people be cured
BEYOND what the science and medicine could do alone.

there is a SCIENCE to it.

If you have a mailing address, or know someone at a public school or church library where I
can send donated copies and then you can borrow and read it and keep it there,
I'm happy to mail them.

Or you can buy cheap copies online
* Healing (edition 1999 or late) by Francis MacNutt
describes 4 levels and types of healing process
(and no, praying does NOT take the place of going to the doctor
and getting the necessary procedures as science would call for;
it is about praying to FORGIVE whatever fears or conflicts are getting in the
way of either getting help or the stopping the help from working effectively in cases where it is blocked.
You can't just "pray for the result," but identify what STEPS are needed to "unblock obstructions"
to the natural healing, so that the flow is restored and the process works naturally after that.)

* The Healing Light by Agnes Sanford
where she explains the natural process of how
healing and life energy works where allowing Nature to work
is what it means to call on God, to agree to let go and forgive
and let the healing life energy in to fully heal the mind and body

The point IS for you to see how it works.
That is how
* Francis MacNutt first found out spiritual healing was real and being used regularly
* Phillip Goldfedder witnessed how it works and it changed his practice from neurosurgery
to direct counseling and therapy to help more people effectively
* Scott Peck (his book I give out is "Glimpses of the Devil")
didn't believe this was real or scientifically natural until he saw
two "incureable" schizophrenic patients CURED of their demonic voices /personalities
that otherwise blocked them from receiving treatment. Once those demonic influences
were removed, these patients returned to normal mindsets so they coudl follow the
doctor and treatment, and get medical help and therapy to resolve their conditions as normal.
So it works WITH medicine, not against it, not rejecting negating or denying any help.

 

[G.T.]

I will look into it Emily, thanks!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) 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.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________
Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

 

[Hollie]

Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things. Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

...
Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.

Dear M.D. Rawlings:
I think you are nitpicking on terms.
Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.

What this REALLY means is
"proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"

You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
"logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"

The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!

God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.

Once someone sees God = something false and negative
then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
define God = something else

So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
is to AGREE what the variables stand for.

When I speak with a Buddhist
God = may equal Wisdom

With some Christians
God = love and with some God = truth
Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice

Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
I find that
God = truth and
Jesus = justice
works better to align with what they already believe in.

So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.

You may have to set the starting values
differently for some people, rather than
using only one God = generic global identity

Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
because that is the most common,
and you will reach the largest audience, fine.

What about someone who is on Saxophone.
what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
play and learn the same song?

If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
it to be adjusted to G.

Some people aren't using a major key
but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!

it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
their key and music may be different, too!

I love you, Emily, but I'm not nitpicking over terms. My terms are the objectively refined terms of accuracy and precision.

If persons wish to use other terms that work, that's fine with me. A rose is a rose. Unlike some, I do not make demands or gratuitously quibble over terms, ever! (And right now those who do make it a habit of quibbling over obvious things are rolling their eyes, because they roll their eyes over everything, except what matters) Use whatever terms you want. I reserve the right to show whether or not the terms being used by others are valid or accurate with regard to the factual and logical concerns about any given objective. Inaccurate, imprecise or ambiguous terms lead to errors in logic and fact. As long as the terms being used are in fact objectively and definitively accurate and mutually understood, that's great. There should be no debate over any of this.

Otherwise, I'm easy that way in spite of what others have falsely implied in some sense or another.

Frankly, I don’t even know why you're saying this to me of all people. Me? I'm trying to use terms that are the most logically and objectively accurate, which means I'm trying to use terms that are definitively unambiguous and unbiased. The only things I can think of that have you saying this are the following:

1. dblack quibbled with me over the term cosmological order after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using his terms! I don't know why he went postal.

2. G.T., quibbled with me over the term cognition. Are you kidding me? In this case, cognition is the only term in the English language that comprehensively denotes the thing that is meant. Consciousness would be the second best term in the English language, but not appropriate in this case because it leaves necessary connotations that are meant out.

3. Foxfyre suggested that I'm using terms, without a clue as to what my premise is, not for the sake of being objectively and comprehensively accurate and precise, but for some small and petty reason. That's a disgustingly false allegation. It's mealy-mouthed bullshit.

4. Blurring the line between logic and science and what they're used for, blurring the line between philosophy and science, saying that philosophy is bullshit, saying that we don't need the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological definitions and standards of justification that only philosophy--not science!--can provide, saying that philosophy does not have primacy over or does not precede science: leads to the idiocy that there is no such thing as objectively demonstrable facts of logic or objectively demonstrable facts of science.

That's factually and logically false. I will not accept that and neither should any other pragmatically commonsensical person.

Logic is used to prove or disprove things. More to the point, logic is used to divulge what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.

The scientific method is used to verify or falsify notions about empirical things that the available evidentiary data and logic appear to recommend at any given time.

Folks have been muddling the pertinent facts regarding these two things in order to make arguments that are subjective and false. I will not tolerate that.

Word.

You will not tolerate that? Sure you will, tough guy.

Your pointless TAG argument is a joke. It's meaningless, it's viciously circular and its configured to yield a predefined conclusion. You really shouldn't expect that people who can discern rationality from fundamentalist dogma would accept such a phony argument as yours.

 

[Hollie]

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) 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.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________
Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

So. You have been spamming the thread with this same cut and paste nonsense.

Your failed argument has repeatedly been dismissed and rejected as false. Are you thinking that spamming is somehow going to revive a dead argument?