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

[emilynghiem]

OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:

1.

It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

FLAG off-sides/foul. beep, alarms go off.

You already know this, but someone who is coming from the viewpoint
that all things could be here in and of themselves and we don't know about how this came bout
is going to drop off the line at this point in the convo.

you already negated and excluded people who
psychologically blend in God with the Creation.

Like those who say God is Nature, and see all Life as POSSIBLY
existing with NO beginning and NO end.

Why not leave it open ended to INCLUDE those folks also in your audience and proof?
Why shut them out on the other side of the door?

Is there any way to leave it open that
YES it IS possible that the Creation and God are inseparable and this just exists.

Science may represent a different starting point with a big bang etc.
The Bible may focus on a subset starting point with just the Hebrew lineage (6000 Years)
that represents a MICROCOSM of the larger process, but is not the beginning of all creation and time,
just the start of man's self-awareness or the start of the laws under the Patriarchal Mosaic/Hebrew lineage.

MD it's OKAY if we don't all have the same starting point.

We can still ALIGN as beginning point, where we need to get, and the process in between to get there.

Some Christians look at the bigger timeline that includes pre-humanoid beings in the millions of years
and some do not, some start the timeline with Adam and Eve in 6000 years. And we still have to align,
even though we frame the steps using different framework, it is relative and it still follows the same patterns.


2.

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.

Now THIS points I CAN agree with: if we agree to set God = Creation then we are agreeing that
God represents something we AGREE exists. I agree!

The point is to reach that agreement, and then sometimes you don't need the proof after that.
You're already there.

[PS two atheist friends couldn't relate to Creation but were okay iwth Universe.
one could not accept saying God = Nature, although people personify Mother Nature
all the time. The male God can be too domineering as associated with patriarchal
a-holes they don't want to enable or encourage. So the Buddhist approach of talking
about the "spiritual laws in general" sometimes neutralizes that more and keeps out
negative reactions from bad religious experiences.]

3.

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.

3. what I offer here is to demonstrate this in person:
to show that ANY objections that arise along the way can be resolved.
So only if people get stuck on a conflict does the process of proof/agreement also get stuck.

This is like a LIVE demonstration of this "contradictory" concept so people can see it happens each time.

NOTE: as you pointed out the difference between using "science" which doesn't really prove it,
vs. using math/logic which proves the global pattern, this borrows from both
a. we use the live examples like science to demonstrate where people can REPEAT the process and see it
b. but running into their own 'contradictions' is UNIQUE to each person - it proves it to them personally,
but doesn't necessarily prove this is true for all people, and that's where the leap of faith comes in.
once people get how they resolved their conflicts, they can see that other people go through their own version.


4.

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.

4. and the way I would say the same thing WITHOUT presupposing or imposing God=Creator but remaining unconditional:

If something is the universal truth, this would include all people.
otherwise objections and conflicts come up.

So this is natural law, by definition of what IS universal truth or God's truth.

either we resolve the conflicts that come up so we DO ALL AGREE on the truth
or we have to drop something or substitute if that part is NOT universal and causing an unresolved conflict.

MD you do not need to believe in God=Creator to follow along with
the process of reaching universal truth and understanding/agreement.

That is not a necessary condition.

But I would AGREE with you, that if people DO have the right understanding
of God, they DON'T REJECT God = Creator. But that's not the same as actively believing it.

All that is necessary to work through the proof is NOT TO REJECT the possibility and option
that other people use and include.

If I had to believe in gravity before you would take steps to demonstrate how it worked,
we could fight all day long and never get to the proof.

Why don't you show me first, and then I can see what you mean.
Some people think this way, and need to experience something more before they take the next steps.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Love you too "tough guy"!

I love that you have pinpointed which words caused the snags.
This actually helps a lot. Each person is different, and this helps us to know where they are or aren't with us.

I have found this is a KEY piece of the puzzle, to ID the areas where we are not in tune with each other.

This is GOOD not bad. i
It does take effort, but it's exactly what is needed to help to get to where we need to be.

Let's work out all these points. The more you work with people, they will work with you.
Some things may get repeated, because we have multiple layers of processing.

And it takes resolving the same thing in different contexts to fully integrate.

So it's okay that's going to happen even though it annoys others who think it's repeating or conflicting for no reason.
Just resolve over and over until we hash it all out.
=======================
I want to write a book or list on a website all the areas of working out terms.

Like on one forum site, some of the nontheist member couldn't understand this "sin" business as being the downfall of man,
but the issue came up of when did humans develop "EGO" and that was blamed for the selfish greed and corruption.
So I said, okay, why not substitute "Ego" for when "Sin" originated,
and let Adam and Eve represent that stage of development?

it is perfectly normal for people to have their own way and needing to align
relative terms for these stages and processes.

MD it may seem taxing to you, but remember your words and ways
seem VERY taxing to others! ==> they are TRYING to work with you,
so let's be grateful for that effort and do the best we can with what we've got.

If they say I can't handle X but I can deal with Y, let's try to include that in.
If we have to split into teams, that's fine as long as the teams work together towards some resolution.
even if we disagree what that is going to be at the end. we can agree what steps to take to get us closer!

 

[emilynghiem]

I will look into it Emily, thanks!!

Thanks GT!
if you run into issues let me know, as that is the key to the process,
addressing EVERY thing that comes up whether for or against.

Some friends I recommended this for looking into
found even better resources they liked more.

One skeptic found bogus dangerous faith healing which is not the same but the opposite,
and MacNutt carefully explains the difference and why the false faith healing fails and is so dangerous and abusive.

I think it is just as critical to use science/medicine to stop the dangerous false malpractice/fraud
as it is to prove how the effective methods work naturally, and understand the difference.

I will keep working with MD to see how to shape this proof
to include more people taking different approaches.

I am the "process person," and he wants to see successful results!
Don't we make a lovely team? ;-)

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

OK Hollie can we substitute something else for this whole TAG set up?

What do you need to see to know that the teachings in Christianity about God are real and valid?

Let's start with what you need and can follow
and try to find a way to make something work here.

I suggested working on proving that spiritual healing is valid
and does NOT require people to either convert BEFORE or convert AFTER.

Would that help?

Would it help to show that Jews Christians and Muslims can all
agree in Christ by following the steps of forgiveness and reconciliation?

What about peacemaking between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans?
prolife and prochoice?

What would help you to see that there is divine Grace in the world
that if we forgive one another then we can reach agreed understanding of truth
that TRANSCENDS and voids all these conflicts we had without that forgiveness.

Name some things you would need to see resolved
before you believed that a greater force of love/truth/God was uniting people as one.

I am happy to include those examples in the proof
to reach as many people as possible to show how this works in real life!

 

[dblack]

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.

You don't? Really? Well, let me clarify. I went "postal" on you because, despite your erudite posturing, you are a fucking idiot. Worse, you're manipulative, deceitful and insulting in nearly everything you post. I thought I was clear on this earlier, but since you still seem confused, I thought I'd set you straight. Not that you'll stay that way, but ...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. ARE THERE ANY?

Of course...

God, is Nature, the Creator of the Universe and the laws intrinsic to such. The Universe exists, therefore the Creator exists.

Glad I could help.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Emily, the issue here is not that G.T. doesn't agree with what I showed him to be true. He knows what I showed him is true. He's lying about it to others because there is something sick in him. And I would very much appreciate it if you would be cognizant of the objective fact of the game he's playing here.

Why?

Because I am trying to show how God directly presents Himself to man or at the very least that nature has hardwired a certain cognition that we cannot escape. It's an objective fact of cognition. EVERYONE has a RIGHT to see this so that one can make up his own mind about what it means.

I need to know if you understand why the TAG argument holds logically true, please. Please read and carefully think about Post #2578. By the way, this does not mean that God is limited to being only the Creator. All it means is that He is the Creator. Saying that He's the Creator, does not preclude everything else that He is.

After doing that, please read the following and know that G.T. is not being honest. I'm asking you politely to not facilitate his duplicity. Others have a right to see this. It is objectively true. We all have the right to see this. He has no moral right to prevent others from seeing this with his sick and depraved behavior that intentionally misstates what the TAG proves. EMILY! HE'S INTENTIONALY LYING, TRYING TO CONCEAL A TRUTH FROM OTHERS WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE IT! WHAT HE'S DOING IS DEPRAVED.

I'm repeating it because he keeps trying to conceal it from others! What kind of person does this to others? What kind of person intentionally misleads others about an objective fact of human cognition?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism...

You're confused.

No one argues with the lack of concern for or interest in theism, such as is the case in the innocuous a-theist.

Your angst has no kinship with a-theism. Such angst is however typical of that chronically regurgitated by the lowly anti-theist. Anti-theism is a sad little cult of malcontents who regret that nature has taken the position that THEY are not God... and doesn't give a dam' about their sociopathy which NEEDS to shirk the guilt they suffer, as a result of their being such pathetic little pervs.

 

[G.T.]

MD, you're a certified fucking but job. Seek help, dude.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You don't? Really? Well, let me clarify. I went "postal" on you because, despite your erudite posturing, you are a fucking idiot. Worse, you're manipulative, deceitful and insulting in nearly everything you post. I thought I was clear on this earlier, but since you still seem confused, I thought I'd set you straight. Not that you'll stay that way, but ...

Throwing tantrums, telling falsehoods and attacking the reputation of others without justification is not clarity. I have manipulated nothing. Every thing I have talked about is objectively true logically. I have never insulted you as you have repeatedly insulted me, directly and with false allegations.

You are the liar and the manipulator! That is not the excuse you gave for going postal out of the blue. You stated that you were pissed off over definitions (I can quote you.), which made no sense because (1) you were the one who raised the matter in the first place and because (2) I told you that your terms were fine with me, whatever you wanted, as long as they were accurate.

There is no erudite posturing on my part. My eruditeness in the fields of linguistic and mathematical logic, philosophy and theology is a fact! Your attitude in the face of that fact is that of an insecure spoiled brat.

And here is the real psychology for your pathological emotionalism and irrationality: You entered into a discussion with me believing that the things I told you to be objectively, axiomatically and universally true for all humans was the stuff of what you just called me again. But what you found out is that everything you had always believed to be logically or factually true about the issues of existence and origin were not true after all.

An honest person’s response would be that of joy, the joy of being rid of false ideas. The response of the dishonest person is to attack the person who swept away the clouds.

That’s the insult you’re really talking about on my part. We both know that to be true, because everyone of your attempts to deny the truth has been refuted, not by me, but by the objective facts of human cognition. How could I manipulate those? Further, it is you who has been sneeringly obnoxious, insulting, dishonest, rude and ugly, just as you were once again in this post of yours.

 

[Brucethethinker]

God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds...

Would it help to show that Jews Christians and Muslims can all
agree in Christ by following the steps of forgiveness and reconciliation?

Hi Emily! I traded some messages with you a few years ago. I see you're still at it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD, you're a certified fucking but job. Seek help, dude.

You have no moral right to conceal, obscure, manipulate and deceive others out of seeing this truth about human cognition regarding a question about God and truth.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You don't? Really? Well, let me clarify. I went "postal" on you because, despite your erudite posturing, you are a fucking idiot. Worse, you're manipulative, deceitful and insulting in nearly everything you post. I thought I was clear on this earlier, but since you still seem confused, I thought I'd set you straight. Not that you'll stay that way, but ...

Throwing tantrums, telling falsehoods and attacking the reputation of others without justification is not clarity. I have manipulated nothing. Every thing I have talked about is objectively true logically. I have never insulted you as you have repeatedly insulted me, directly and with false allegations.

You are the liar and the manipulator! That is not the excuse you gave for going postal out of the blue. You stated that you were pissed off over definitions (I can quote you.), which made no sense because (1) you were the one who raised the matter in the first place and because (2) I told you that your terms were fine with me, whatever you wanted, as long as they were accurate.

There is no erudite posturing on my part. My eruditeness in the fields of linguistic and mathematical logic, philosophy and theology is a fact! Your attitude in the face of that fact is that of an insecure spoiled brat.

And here is the real psychology for your pathological emotionalism and irrationality: You entered into a discussion with me believing that the things I told you to be objectively, axiomatically and universally true for all humans was the stuff of what you just called me again. But what you found out is that everything you had always believed to be logically or factually true about the issues of existence and origin were not true after all.

An honest person’s response would be that of joy, the joy of being rid of false ideas. The response of the dishonest person is to attack the person who swept away the clouds.

That’s the insult you’re really talking about on my part. We both know that to be true, because everyone of your attempts to deny the truth has been refuted, not by me, but by the objective facts of human cognition. How could I manipulate those? Further, it is you who has been sneeringly obnoxious, insulting, dishonest, rude and ugly, just as you were once again in this post of yours.

The gargantuan text does add melodrama.

I'll give it a 7.5 I might have scored it higher cept' for cliches' and slogans.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:

Emily, I laid down foundation upon foundation on all of this. Most of the atheists on this thread know what I have shown them is in fact universally, objectively and axiomatically true for all. I know that because I can read the signals of their ever-shifting evasions. This is something the subjectivist doesn't get. Those of us practiced in the art of objectivity can see right through them. I will not allow them to deceive others. They have no moral right to attack my reputation or credibility in an attempt to close the minds others to what I'm sharing (and I have warning for Foxfrye, a theist, next). But it's not about me. They have no moral right to lie about what they now know to be true out of pride and thereby STEAL the right of others to see what belongs to all us all. NO MORAL RIGHT!

They see it, Emily. Don't be deceived.

On the other note: that one cannot possibly know these things until one has experienced these things for themselves . . . of course, I understand that, better than most, precisely because I don't do subjective mush. In others words, I can see the wheels turning in the atheist's head.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

does add melodrama.

I'll give it a 7.5 I might have scored it higher cept' for cliches' and slogans.

You have no moral right to conceal, obscure, manipulate and deceive others out of seeing this truth about human cognition regarding a question about God and truth. You are a liar: you, G.T. and dblack are liars.

 

[Hollie]

OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:

Emily, I laid down foundation upon foundation on all of this. Most of the atheists on this thread know what I have shown them is in fact universally, objectively and axiomatically true for all. I know that because I can read the signals of their ever-shifting evasions. This is something the subjectivist doesn't get. Those of us practiced in the art of objectivity can see right through them. I will not allow them to deceive others. They have no moral right to attack my reputation or credibility in an attempt to close the minds others to what I'm sharing (and I have warning for Foxfrye, a theist, next). But it's not about me. They have no moral right to lie about what they now know to be true out of pride and thereby STEAL the right of others to see what belongs to all us all. NO MORAL RIGHT!

They see it, Emily. Don't be deceived.

On the other note: that one cannot possibly know these things until one has experienced these things for themselves . . . of course, I understand that, better than most, precisely because I don't do subjective mush. In others words, I can see the wheels turning in the atheist's head.

Actually, what you showed are some of the dangers of religious extremism.

You shouldn't think that your circular, self-refuting arguments are at all persuasive. They're just amateurish and drenched in the fervor of the angry zealot.

 

[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.

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.

OK Hollie can we substitute something else for this whole TAG set up?

What do you need to see to know that the teachings in Christianity about God are real and valid?

Let's start with what you need and can follow
and try to find a way to make something work here.

I suggested working on proving that spiritual healing is valid
and does NOT require people to either convert BEFORE or convert AFTER.

Would that help?

Would it help to show that Jews Christians and Muslims can all
agree in Christ by following the steps of forgiveness and reconciliation?

What about peacemaking between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans?
prolife and prochoice?

What would help you to see that there is divine Grace in the world
that if we forgive one another then we can reach agreed understanding of truth
that TRANSCENDS and voids all these conflicts we had without that forgiveness.

Name some things you would need to see resolved
before you believed that a greater force of love/truth/God was uniting people as one.

I am happy to include those examples in the proof
to reach as many people as possible to show how this works in real life!

Now, Hollie, on the other hand may not see it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:

Emily, I laid down foundation upon foundation on all of this. Most of the atheists on this thread know what I have shown them is in fact universally, objectively and axiomatically true for all. I know that because I can read the signals of their ever-shifting evasions. This is something the subjectivist doesn't get. Those of us practiced in the art of objectivity can see right through them. I will not allow them to deceive others. They have no moral right to attack my reputation or credibility in an attempt to close the minds others to what I'm sharing (and I have warning for Foxfrye, a theist, next). But it's not about me. They have no moral right to lie about what they now know to be true out of pride and thereby STEAL the right of others to see what belongs to all us all. NO MORAL RIGHT!

They see it, Emily. Don't be deceived.

On the other note: that one cannot possibly know these things until one has experienced these things for themselves . . . of course, I understand that, better than most, precisely because I don't do subjective mush. In others words, I can see the wheels turning in the atheist's head.

Actually, what you showed are some of the dangers of religious extremism.

You shouldn't think that your circular, self-refuting arguments are at all persuasive. They're just amateurish and drenched in the fervor of the angry zealot.

You have no moral right to conceal, obscure, manipulate and deceive others out of seeing this truth about human cognition regarding a question about God and truth. You are a liar: you, G.T. and dblack are liars.

 

[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 (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
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

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, G.T.
I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, G.T.

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

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that logically proves the opposite of what it asserts. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible fact of human cognition.

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.


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.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like G.T., are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG argument actually proves.

No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves given the nature of the Object of the TAG are the following: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are biologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic? Hmm.

Why is that in our head as an axiom?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.