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

[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.

You aren't going with what's probable but you are going with what "might" be possible. That's called wishful thinking.

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

 

[Justin Davis]

[

No, you haven't. You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question. I do question them.
.

That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it. It's when people make arg

Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?

I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​

It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,

just because it looks impressive.

The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.

All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin. I'm a new believer. I just recently began to read the literature. But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways. That means he owns the topic in his own right. He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't. That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote. What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him. But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down. What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue. To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts. I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists. No he's not. What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.

 

[sealybobo]

[

No, you haven't. You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question. I do question them.
.

That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it. It's when people make arg

Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?

I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​

It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,

just because it looks impressive.

The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.

All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin. I'm a new believer. I just recently began to read the literature. But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways. That means he owns the topic in his own right. He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't. That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote. What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him. But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down. What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue. To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts. I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists. No he's not. What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.

I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.

So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance. Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?

 

[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?

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?

I'm a Christian, a relatively new believer who likes science. I'm not trying to do gocha. All I did was point out a misconception that you have about the idea of God and the question of origin. What's wrong with that? There's also a hint of scientific ignorance in your post. As for my personal beliefs, I agree with guys like QW, M.D.R. and I think Rizurzhen. They're not relevant to the OP, and your dismissal of "miracles" and the existence of transcendent creatures is nonsensical. You've already said you're an atheist. Now you're repeating yourself, though I don't think you get that either.

 

[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?

I'm a Christian, a relatively new believer who likes science. I'm not trying to do gocha. All I did was point out a misconception that you have about the idea of God and the question of origin. What's wrong with that? There's also a hint of scientific ignorance in your post. As for my personal beliefs, I agree with guys like QW, M.D.R. and I think Rizurzhen. They're not relevant to the OP, and your dismissal of "miracles" and the existence of transcendent creatures is nonsensical. You've already said you're an atheist. Now you're repeating yourself, though I don't think you get that either.

What misconception? You mean because you believe your invisible friend is the beginning and the end and eternal? Nothing and I mean NOTHING lives forever. Does anything else live forever? Well then why are we to believe your invisible friend does?

So instead of accepting that it is possible that the universe came from nothing, or at least not a "god" who intelligently designed us, you would rather believe that a god created us, cares about you, made heaven for you to live forever, blabla? I mean when I put it that way, sounds pretty stupid huh?

And this god doesn't have a friend or a spouse? But we are made in his image?

So you are a new christian? Do you take the Noah and Jonah stories literally or are they allegories? If they are allegories, maybe so are the Jesus stories too huh?

Oh yea, because you too want to live forever, in heaven after you die. Wishful thinking is all that is.

 

[Justin Davis]

[

No, you haven't. You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question. I do question them.
.

That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it. It's when people make arg

Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?

I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​

It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,

just because it looks impressive.

The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.

All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin. I'm a new believer. I just recently began to read the literature. But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways. That means he owns the topic in his own right. He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't. That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote. What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him. But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down. What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue. To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts. I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists. No he's not. What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.

I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.

So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance. Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?

I don't believe you. A learned believer knows that blind faith is anathema to the teachings of the Bible. You misunderstood them or heard what you wanted to hear. And the kind of faith they would have been talking about would have been about man's dependency on God, trusting in God which grows over time with understanding and experience. Besides that has to do with a deeper level of theology, not the objective universals of this OP.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I love it when people use words they don't understand.

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.

Funny thing, there is absolutely no experimental evidence to support the theories of dark matter or dark energy, yet science still insist that they exist. Can you explain that?

...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.

Dawkins is hostile to all religion because he is an idiot, just like you.

Did you know that it was clerics that first supported Darwin, and scientists that thought he was crazy?

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.

That is historically inaccurate, and directly contradicted by multiple facts. Then again, I really don' expect anyone that insist the Dark Ages really happened to understand facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you are right

I knew that before you told me, I only argue when I am right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

None of them?

There is a story in Islam about how Mohammad led an army to take out a city, and lost. Funny thing, there are multiple historical references to that very thing.

That means that, once again, you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.

So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance. Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?

Stop lying.

No one who is educated in religion would ever tell you you need to have blind faith.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

You've got it! And of course the universal basis for this is "hardwired" in the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the neurological system. In addition to that, you and I believe that there exists a soul (or spiritual mind) that inter-dimensionally interfaces with the former.

And the ultimate thrust of the seemingly unqualified major premise is even more apparent in the light of the kinds of objections that are raised by the more sensible atheists who of course recognize/concede the objective existence or universally apparent nature of the various imperatives pertinent to the problem of origin ("Everybody knows") and the universally absolute laws of logic. These objections are infinitely more interesting than the silliness of relativists who fail to realize that they are necessarily affirming the existence of these things every time they open their mouths to assert anything, as if their declaration that human cognition is relativistically subjective actually makes that so in reality, as if they escape the imperative of identity. Cognitive psychopath. Talk about false consciousness. Their objections are inherently self-negating baby talk.

Now does any of this absolutely prove that God exists? I don’t think so. But what it does demonstrate is that even the seemingly unqualified assertion of God's existence is not inherently contradictory while the assertion of atheism is. It appears that there's something wrong with it, at least as far as the laws of logic are concerned at the proscriptive level of apprehension. May we fairly assert that the teleological argument demonstrates that theism has the better argument? I think so, but there remains the potentially valid objection implied by selection bias relative to the physical laws and conditions of the cosmos at the descriptive level of apprehension, which is a staggeringly complex issue, though I still think theism has the stronger argument as the same kind of contradiction appears to spill over into the contemplation of that aspect of existence. Unfortunately, there are only two or maybe three atheists on this thread that I'm aware of who have the intellectual firepower and integrity to challenge the argument at the higher level of criticism. That would be instructive. One of them is AWOL, the guy who started the OP. Rizurzhen is another. I don't know if Wingbag is a theist or not. Unless he emphatically told us somewhere on this OP where he stands, his arguments are not necessarily indicative of where he's at.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[

No, you haven't. You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question. I do question them.
.

That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it. It's when people make arg

Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?

I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​

It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,

just because it looks impressive.

The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.

All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin. I'm a new believer. I just recently began to read the literature. But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways. That means he owns the topic in his own right. He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't. That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote. What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him. But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down. What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue. To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts. I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists. No he's not. What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.[/QUOTE]


Correct.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God. Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Yes, that is correct.

Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.

Believers on the other hand don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves since they have simply have faith instead.

However if believers want to convince atheists then they will need to provide hard evidence for the existence of their God.

It is the believers who feel the need to convince atheists, not the other way around.

For atheists there is nothing to lose if they are wrong and they are under no compulsion.

For believers there is a compelling need to prove themselves right.

The believers are the ones who have the burden of proof since they have to prove that the atheists are wrong.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Yes, that is correct.

Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.

Now that we've excluded you from the category of Atheist all of us can see that your constant attacks on Theists are motivated by your religious Liberalism, your attacks are part of a war between faiths, your Liberalism versus their Christianity. As you admitted, an Atheist wouldn't be taking battle to Theists, and so because all you do is take battle to Christians while pretending to be an Atheist in order to give cover to your religious Liberalism, you just paint us authentic Atheists in a bad light.

Now that you've left the mask slip and finally come around to admitting that you're not an Atheist, please stop with the masquerade.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

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.

That "spark of wonder and curiosity" is our own spirituality and intelligence. We know they exist because we experience them for ourselves. We have studied our intelligence to a greater extent because it is measurable but our sense of wonder, our spirituality, is a great deal harder to measure.

However we can measure our brains when in a state of spirituality and we can measure similar brain states in other creatures. Spirituality does exist because we can both experience it and measure it. What each of us experiences individually can only be shared through words. The words we choose to explain what we experience depend largely on how it was described to us originally.

So what to me is a sense of wonder to you could be a sense of holiness even though we are both in the same measured brain state.

The dichotomy arises when we anthropomorhise that experience and try to ascribe it to something for which there is no basis for doing so. If we both see a sunset and one of us in awe at the way light is reflecting off clouds while the other believes that they observing the handiwork of their God is where the difference lies.

We have measured the way light interacts so our intelligence knows what we are observing. But our sense of awe when we see something spectacular is on a more emotional and less rational level. The sense of spirituality is the same for both observers but it diverges depending upon how each individual rationalizes the identical experience.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator" cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.

 

[MaxGrit]

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?

Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator" cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.

wtf is this weak shit? u srs?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, that is correct.

Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.

Now that we've excluded you from the category of Atheist all of us can see that your constant attacks on Theists are motivated by your religious Liberalism, your attacks are part of a war between faiths, your Liberalism versus their Christianity. As you admitted, an Atheist wouldn't be taking battle to Theists, and so because all you do is take battle to Christians while pretending to be an Atheist in order to give cover to your religious Liberalism, you just paint us authentic Atheists in a bad light.

Now that you've left the mask slip and finally come around to admitting that you're not an Atheist, please stop with the masquerade.

Once again Pastory Rikurzhen preaches his perverted "Gospel of Conservatism" based upon his usual pack of lackwitted lies.

Only a theist like yourself would have erroneously misperceived what I posted as an "attack" while someone who was actually an atheist would have understood that it was a perfectly reasonable and valid description of a position held by atheists.

This is what you quoted me as saying.

Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.

The ONUS is on YOU to prove that was a "liberal" "lattack" on "Christianity" rather than a valid description of a position held by atheists.

Gotta love the irony when you make a complete and utter fool of yourself like this over and over again because you are clueless about atheism even while you continue to spout the canard about being one yourself only to expose your own lie with moronic posts like that one.