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

[Justin Davis]

Wow....its coming unhinged.

meltdown mania.

Meltdown? Cognition isn't the right word?How about the word horse? human horse. human cat. human rock. human mind. Ooh, that's close. Disprove means the same thing as falsification in science. Still confusing lying about the TAg. What kind of whack job does someione have to be to lie about obvious things? You mihgt as well by saying that 2+2=106. What kind of person lies about why he went postal atheist? Hey, dblack you know what you said. Where's that post, lets quote it.

 

[Justin Davis]

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commonsense, but I morph

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Commonsense, but I morph

That reminds me. I don’t recall. Does Lang go into his model logic cosmological argument for God in his book?

 

[Justin Davis]

Commonsense, but I morph

That reminds me. I don’t recall. Does Lang go into his model logic cosmological argument for God in his book?

It's one of the chapters but I haven't gotten that far yet.

 

[Justin Davis]

What we all know to be necessarily true is that 2 + 2 = 4 in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable belief is knowledge about the human condition, something we know to be true about human cognition!

I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.

My argument was, we can only believe truth, we can't ever know truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be THE truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.

Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be possible truths.

2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't know this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we believe 2+2=4, therefore, it does.

Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't know for certain unless we have faith in what we believe is certain.

There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.

As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.

I agree that we put faith into all our beliefs in the sense that we believe things to be true outside our minds, but I don't see why you think that people experience things differently means that there aren't universals too. Sorry, that's just wrong and doesn't have anything to do with the universals. No one's saying there aren't subjective beliefs, that in no way changes the facts of origin in our minds. I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all. The understanding of the things listed by him are true. What we believe and know are basically the same thing in the end, the real test is are our beliefs true or not.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear M.D. so your proof fails for people who
understand God as Life or God as Love.

God as Creator is not the only understanding people have of God.

However, I will say this.

People who TRULY understand the whole, the collective universal ABSOLUTE that God represents
will go along with your "subproof" using God = Creator.

So you will only prove your point this way to people who already understand what you mean by God.
and aren't bothered by limiting the definition to God= Creator

This works but for a limited audience.
If you notice, MD. the people like me, Justin and others
who are OKAY with your proof Already understand what you mean by God.

And guess what the people who don't understand
also don't get your proof. What does that tell you?

It only makes sense to that audience who is already Okay with God.
Doesn't that tell you that for everyone else, they need to start with
some other approach to get where you and I and Justin are okay with this proof?

Maybe we can do this, MD.

Can we run STATS on people's response to this proof.

And document the responses of atheists, nontheists. Buddhists,
Christians and Nonchristians and figure out what factors correlated
with people who get this proof
people who do not
why they don't get it
and which things can be remedied
which people cannot remedy or get it at all

and document the reasons why

we can still show the Pattern and Process I was talking about that is universal
so we can still learn how to handle these differences and factors causing
division rejection etc.

instead of just saying the conflict is X and it is Y person's fault

I am saying let's list all the common reactions and remedies,
agree how to address or correct them and show the process

so the next set of people who go through this can follow the
examples and pick which way of resolving conflicts works for them

what do you say MD
think about it and tell me what insights you see this
proof and process can inspire, how can we get to solutions
by talking out our differences brought up and brought out here?

love and thanks
I pray for more wisdom insight
inspiration and growing to new levels of understanding
and embracing more people in this spiritual process

thank you for this!
may all negative barriers be removed
and all challenges turned into benefits that help more people

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What we all know to be necessarily true is that 2 + 2 = 4 in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable belief is knowledge about the human condition, something we know to be true about human cognition!

I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.

My argument was, we can only believe truth, we can't ever know truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be THE truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.

Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be possible truths.

2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't know this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we believe 2+2=4, therefore, it does.

Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't know for certain unless we have faith in what we believe is certain.

There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.

As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.

Actually, Boss, after seeing Justin's post, I read your post again, and I apologize. I need to be clear here because much of what you say is true. I don't disagree with those things. As I already told you, of course, there's a unique, subjective element to everyone's experience of reality, but that doesn't change the fact of the things that are understood by all of us, like 2 + 2 = 4 and The Seven Things! You're not wrong about everything, but your basic premise is wrong or irrelevant.

We have to believe certain things in order to function, do anything in the world beyond the world of ideas, and those things we call knowledge. But you didn't deserve "the no moral right" thing. Your beliefs are sincere. Others are on this thread lying through their teeth about these truths. It's especially outrageous as my position is not to impose any personal biases on anything or tell anyone what they should decide for themselves about what all these things mean taken together.

Nevertheless, the basic essence of your premise would, if it were true, but it's not, undermine the evidence for God's existence. Please don't take offense. I like you, Boss, and it wasn't my intent to put you down. I know I'm not the most sensitive guy on the planet, but I do not gratuitously insult people. But it's important to hold these truths up and see them for what they are. Also, I've already said that objectively speaking we can imagine that everything is an illusion, but what's the practical point of that given that it would make no difference to us even if that seemingly absurd possibility were true.

Also, things like the Big Bang or any scientific theory at all are in fact less certain than the immediate axioms that are in our minds.

 

[emilynghiem]

Objection, your honor.

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

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

Objection, your honor. Creator includes all those things you listed. The issue here is Creator, that's how we see that God is telling us in our hearts that He exists. We can't deny the existence of the Creator logically because he doesn't let us do that. You're objecting to God's way of telling us He's here.

OK so please SAY that.

Please do not just Creator because people take that literally and limited when
God is not limited but infinite in reach and including all things

I am OK with agreeing to let God = Life, Love, Truth, Wisdom or other things
that people relate to and you can still apply the proof

How about this

How about substituting God= Life

So of course if we agree Life exists we are already there.
By definition, by equating God with something that we agree exists,
then God exists. So then all the people who are ok with God = Life do not reject God.

Next

Can we agree that God = truth for some people
then all the people who are okay relating to God in those terms do not reject God.

So go down the list.
some people agree that God = Love and will not reject that

Some understand God = Wisdom

Justin do you like the idea of agreeing to seek the
Kingdom of God?

I like that approach that is very inviting and inclusive.
if you are okay working with people who relate to the one God
but in different ways, how can we adjust the proof where it is
clear. Just saying God =Creator is not clear and puts a finite limit on what God means
rather than stating more options that more people may relate to as an aspect of God

 

[emilynghiem]

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!

Don't make me use gargantuan text!

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Post 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

RE points 1 2 and 5
1. Each of us knows that the people we perceive of "exist"
but we still take on faith the levels OUTSIDE our empirical experience
* collective society is a faith based concept
* collective humanity is faith based
* the history of our families and of humanity, especially spiritual history and future is faith based

So the same things in #5 where "science cannot verify whether God exists"
applies to #1 and #2.

The levels of abstract or inferred perceptions
OUTSIDE our IMMEDIATE empirical senses and experience
are faith based on some level because we rely on memory, on
information from other sources, etc. and it could have errors or change.

the point is AGREEING on a common frame of reference
that works for JUST those specific people
so we don't need proof if we already agree

or going the other direction with a "logic" argument
that represents all cases to "prove" it using "global logic"
as you say

But again, as I point out, only people like Justin and me who already agree with you
that God exists can follow your proof.

And the others who can't don't follow the set up with the logic and definitions
so it doesn't work for them.
======================
RE: 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Post 2599 and 2600)!

Point 6 - let's make this unconditional and then see if we can agree:

6A. I understand that just because we cannot prove or disprove God exists
then that is no reason to assume God doesn't exist

Are you okay that
6B. just because we cannot disprove God is not the reason God exists either

I believe that since GT and I are both okay with "God cannot be proven or disproven" but relies on faith,
and we don't reject each other for our beliefs for or against,
then we can listen and follow what each other says, believes or doesn't believe in.

I believe that open approach HELPS to discuss the points
and the reaction to them.

How do we reach that same level of connection
between you and Hollie, or Boss and others.

If you and Hollie are always going to take offense
regarding this TAG and the rejection of it, I will
just have to accept that is where you are with this.

The points I don't think you get
1. Your attitude toward others is also skewing the reactions and rejections to it
2. Your willingness to change this attitude toward others runs parallel with
their willingness to open up put aside their equal issues and work with you anyway.
it's a mutual give and take. I think you only see that they need to change,
and so they see you are the one who needs to open up and shift to meet them on common ground
3. the way you present the proof DOES leave some people out
Do you see the pattern or common factor in the people who respond
to it and the people who don't? Can we look into that and see how to use that to work this out?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Dear M.D. so your proof fails for people who
understand God as Life or God as Love.

God as Creator is not the only understanding people have of God.

However, I will say this.

People who TRULY understand the whole, the collective universal ABSOLUTE that God represents
will go along with your "subproof" using God = Creator.

So you will only prove your point this way to people who already understand what you mean by God.
and aren't bothered by limiting the definition to God= Creator

This works but for a limited audience.
If you notice, MD. the people like me, Justin and others
who are OKAY with your proof Already understand what you mean by God.

And guess what the people who don't understand
also don't get your proof. What does that tell you?

It only makes sense to that audience who is already Okay with God.
Doesn't that tell you that for everyone else, they need to start with
some other approach to get where you and I and Justin are okay with this proof?

Maybe we can do this, MD.

Can we run STATS on people's response to this proof.

And document the responses of atheists, nontheists. Buddhists,
Christians and Nonchristians and figure out what factors correlated
with people who get this proof
people who do not
why they don't get it
and which things can be remedied
which people cannot remedy or get it at all

and document the reasons why

we can still show the Pattern and Process I was talking about that is universal
so we can still learn how to handle these differences and factors causing
division rejection etc.

instead of just saying the conflict is X and it is Y person's fault

I am saying let's list all the common reactions and remedies,
agree how to address or correct them and show the process

so the next set of people who go through this can follow the
examples and pick which way of resolving conflicts works for them

what do you say MD
think about it and tell me what insights you see this
proof and process can inspire, how can we get to solutions
by talking out our differences brought up and brought out here?

love and thanks
I pray for more wisdom insight
inspiration and growing to new levels of understanding
and embracing more people in this spiritual process

thank you for this!
may all negative barriers be removed
and all challenges turned into benefits that help more people

Nevertheless, the idea of God as Creator is still in their minds, and that's the only thing that matters objectively, as that's the bit of knowledge that's universal.
In other words, I get that. I can imagine the very same thing as they: I even personally know people who assert divinity in that sense. But I also know they have an idea of God as Creator first and foremostly. That’s what they, all of us, start with organically. Even the people I know who think of God like that concede this is true.

The objective facts regarding existence and origin don't fail simply because some decide not to believe that the implications of the TAG are ultimately true. In that sense, in terms of the Idea of God as Creator, their position is really no different than that of the atheist, but even he still has the idea of God as Creator in his mind. All I'm telling people is what is objectively true. The rest is up to them. It's not my place to tell them what to believe ultimately.

Now do I believe and strongly recommend that the evidence overwhelming supports the idea that God does in fact exist as the transcendent Creator of all other things. Yes! Absolutely!. But all must decide for themselves.

 

[Justin Davis]

Objection, your honor.

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

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

Objection, your honor. Creator includes all those things you listed. The issue here is Creator, that's how we see that God is telling us in our hearts that He exists. We can't deny the existence of the Creator logically because he doesn't let us do that. You're objecting to God's way of telling us He's here.

OK so please SAY that.

Please do not just Creator because people take that literally and limited when
God is not limited but infinite in reach and including all things

I am OK with agreeing to let God = Life, Love, Truth, Wisdom or other things
that people relate to and you can still apply the proof

How about this

How about substituting God= Life

So of course if we agree Life exists we are already there.
By definition, by equating God with something that we agree exists,
then God exists. So then all the people who are ok with God = Life do not reject God.

Next

Can we agree that God = truth for some people
then all the people who are okay relating to God in those terms do not reject God.

So go down the list.
some people agree that God = Love and will not reject that

Some understand God = Wisdom

Justin do you like the idea of agreeing to seek the
Kingdom of God?

I like that approach that is very inviting and inclusive.
if you are okay working with people who relate to the one God
but in different ways, how can we adjust the proof where it is
clear. Just saying God =Creator is not clear and puts a finite limit on what God means
rather than stating more options that more people may relate to as an aspect of God

But I was only talking about the TAG. The TAG just talks about the first thing about God.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear peach174 and Hollie:
How I interpret the immaculate conception
is that it represents being born without carrying past "karma" from previous generations.
The rest of us carry issues from our mothers and fathers, generational or national karma,
conditions from our environments etc.

The point of Jesus or Justice being pure is that it is Justice for ALL people
regardless of our situational biases. So it is Universal Justice that is not conditioned
as man's justice is conditioned.

That is what Jesus, his "coming and return" represents: a Higher Justice than man's worldly biased justice.
Perfect Justice that is truly inclusive universal and equal, which is beyond any of us
who are born and carry BIASES from conditions or karma from the past.

A strugle to advance to the next evolutionary step?

Yes we are going through social and spiritual stages of development
Both locally as individuals and globally as collective humanity.

What humans tend to strive for by conscience are things like
* peace and justice, where we want freedom and security, law and order
* consistent truth and correction or prevention of wrongs and abuses
* to learn and correct and improve based on the past instead of repeating mistakes and suffering

So whatever is the final mature stage of humanity and society
would be the fulfillment of equal justice, sustainable growth and structures,
and self-governing effective govt and institutions to solve problems as they arise

People may call the end goal by different terms and benchmarks,
but collectively it's all one process including everyone in society/humanity

what happens locally multiplies and becomes the collective experience on a global scale

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear M.D. so your proof fails for people who
understand God as Life or God as Love.

God as Creator is not the only understanding people have of God.

However, I will say this.

People who TRULY understand the whole, the collective universal ABSOLUTE that God represents
will go along with your "subproof" using God = Creator.

So you will only prove your point this way to people who already understand what you mean by God.
and aren't bothered by limiting the definition to God= Creator

This works but for a limited audience.
If you notice, MD. the people like me, Justin and others
who are OKAY with your proof Already understand what you mean by God.

And guess what the people who don't understand
also don't get your proof. What does that tell you?

It only makes sense to that audience who is already Okay with God.
Doesn't that tell you that for everyone else, they need to start with
some other approach to get where you and I and Justin are okay with this proof?

Maybe we can do this, MD.

Can we run STATS on people's response to this proof.

And document the responses of atheists, nontheists. Buddhists,
Christians and Nonchristians and figure out what factors correlated
with people who get this proof
people who do not
why they don't get it
and which things can be remedied
which people cannot remedy or get it at all

and document the reasons why

we can still show the Pattern and Process I was talking about that is universal
so we can still learn how to handle these differences and factors causing
division rejection etc.

instead of just saying the conflict is X and it is Y person's fault

I am saying let's list all the common reactions and remedies,
agree how to address or correct them and show the process

so the next set of people who go through this can follow the
examples and pick which way of resolving conflicts works for them

what do you say MD
think about it and tell me what insights you see this
proof and process can inspire, how can we get to solutions
by talking out our differences brought up and brought out here?

love and thanks
I pray for more wisdom insight
inspiration and growing to new levels of understanding
and embracing more people in this spiritual process

thank you for this!
may all negative barriers be removed
and all challenges turned into benefits that help more people

Nevertheless, the idea of God as Creator is still in their minds, and that's the only thing that matters objectively, as that's the bit of knowledge that's universal.
In other words, I get that. I can imagine the very same thing as they: I even personally know people who assert divinity in that sense. But I also know they have an idea of God as Creator first and foremostly. That’s what they, all of us, start with organically. Even the people I know who think of God like that concede this is true.

The objective facts regarding existence and origin don't fail simply because some decide not to believe that the implications of the TAG are ultimately true. In that sense, in terms of the Idea of God as Creator, their position is really no different than that of the atheist, but even he still has the idea of God as Creator in his mind. All I'm telling people is what is objectively true. The rest is up to them. It's not my place to tell them what to believe ultimately.

Now do I believe and strongly recommend that the evidence overwhelming supports the idea that God does in fact exist as the transcendent Creator of all other things. Yes! Absolutely!. But all must decide for themselves.

What I am saying is "presenting the proof to people" fails if you cannot explain
God using a definition they relate to.

So this is LIKE having a perfect proof,
but some people speak Spanish as their native language
and you are talking German.

Your proof may be solid but if people cannot hear what you are saying,
and all they hear is you want to force them to convert to German
to understand the proof given in German, they will question why.

I like Boss' approach recognizing that people do have different perceptions
and frameworks of reality.

Can we adjust your proof to speak to different people's perspectives
coming from different angles of reality?

Since you and Justin explained that God still means something broader than
just Creator, I think that helps. It makes a difference.

To my mother, who believes the truth in Buddhism IS the universal end all be all,
that is her understanding of God, she wants everyone to come to this same
understanding of what Buddhism teaches about life.

the next person finds the truth about Allah through Islam to be the all
powerful central truth that speaks to and includes all people and
wants everyone to connect on that note.

So MD how do we include all these ways and attach them
under the God = Creator part, so we can include all these people
pushing for God but in different ways using different definitions.

How do we get all people on the same page that we are
still referring to the same one God. Do we jsut bring them
together as a team? If so , I can start collecting and inviting
Key friends from Atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and
Constitutionalism and form a team to agree on God.

My friend Ray is atheist but is fully compatible withChristians when ti comes
to healing grace through forgiveness. So he has his approaches
he recommends to overcome conflicts that otherwise divide people and waste
energy we could be using to solve problems more effectively in teams.

Do you want to call some online conferences
and plan out how to form a consensus on God?
I know some people with multimedia conferencing
platforms willing to work with you.

let's start with the steering committee/team first
get on the same page with people who already agree
and then delegate the steps to address people with
different approaches to relating to God as the outreach work from there

I see the process as learning as much from others as we share with them.
it makes us equal in our give and take, where everyone is vital to the whole

so it is a good learning and relationsihp building process
to bridge new partnerships and organize people by who and what they relate to

like lining up the circuits so the machine can work
all parts are necessary and just need to be hooked up together in groups

please pray over this
and i will start asking my friends to join you


thanks MD you lead the way and others who are
leading their troops will join in and fill in the ranks

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!

Don't make me use gargantuan text!

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Post 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

RE points 1 2 and 5
1. Each of us knows that the people we perceive of "exist"
but we still take on faith the levels OUTSIDE our empirical experience
* collective society is a faith based concept
* collective humanity is faith based
* the history of our families and of humanity, especially spiritual history and future is faith based

So the same things in #5 where "science cannot verify whether God exists"
applies to #1 and #2.

The levels of abstract or inferred perceptions
OUTSIDE our IMMEDIATE empirical senses and experience
are faith based on some level because we rely on memory, on
information from other sources, etc. and it could have errors or change.

the point is AGREEING on a common frame of reference
that works for JUST those specific people
so we don't need proof if we already agree

or going the other direction with a "logic" argument
that represents all cases to "prove" it using "global logic"
as you say

But again, as I point out, only people like Justin and me who already agree with you
that God exists can follow your proof.

And the others who can't don't follow the set up with the logic and definitions
so it doesn't work for them.
======================
RE: 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Post 2599 and 2600)!

Point 6 - let's make this unconditional and then see if we can agree:

6A. I understand that just because we cannot prove or disprove God exists
then that is no reason to assume God doesn't exist

Are you okay that
6B. just because we cannot disprove God is not the reason God exists either

I believe that since GT and I are both okay with "God cannot be proven or disproven" but relies on faith,
and we don't reject each other for our beliefs for or against,
then we can listen and follow what each other says, believes or doesn't believe in.

I believe that open approach HELPS to discuss the points
and the reaction to them.

How do we reach that same level of connection
between you and Hollie, or Boss and others.

If you and Hollie are always going to take offense
regarding this TAG and the rejection of it, I will
just have to accept that is where you are with this.

The points I don't think you get
1. Your attitude toward others is also skewing the reactions and rejections to it
2. Your willingness to change this attitude toward others runs parallel with
their willingness to open up put aside their equal issues and work with you anyway.
it's a mutual give and take. I think you only see that they need to change,
and so they see you are the one who needs to open up and shift to meet them on common ground
3. the way you present the proof DOES leave some people out
Do you see the pattern or common factor in the people who respond
to it and the people who don't? Can we look into that and see how to use that to work this out?

I don't have a problem with most of this. As I have already stated everything we do and believe, whether it be in our minds or "outside" our minds in the seemingly real world beyond, science, is all based on one metaphysical presupposition or another. That's why it is not true to say that science precedes or has primacy of over philosophy. Those who dismiss the first principles of philosophy and think that they're evading or escaping the order of things are deluding themselves. Notwithstanding, the idea of God we have is that of a Creator first, and that idea inherently declares that we may believe with confidence that these things are not mere illusion. Is that a matter of faith? Yes. But only in the most elemental sense as it is practical necessity and reason above all else that compels that decision. Faith proper comes in when we commit ourselves to something greater than the mere material realm of being, either in the metaphysical terms of force or principle, or in the sense of a transcendent divinity as organic logic principally asserts.

As for #6, it logically proves God exists just like logic proves 2 + 2 = 4. Logic proves things, science doesn't. Logic tells us what is rational and, therefore possible. Your terms are improper and misleading. They are unacceptable to me. Indeed, they contradict the first principle of philosophy, but I know what you mean and presumably you're using the term informally with this distinction in mind.


The ramification of the TAG is that this axiom is biologically hardwired and goes to a very compelling reason to believe that God must be.
I don't have a problem with G.T. telling me that he doesn't accept that as a sufficient ground to hold that God does in fact exist. That’s axiomatic!

I will not accept his derisive attitude or his intellectual dishonestly about what the TAG actually proves, and frankly, I have nothing but utter contempt for his attitude and his craven and manipulative ways. He does in fact have a moral responsibility to emphatically acknowledge what the TAG proves and what it implies without evasion. He has no moral right to mislead others about these things. That’s manipulation. That’s what demagogues do. They conceal facts from others in order to dominate them.

Integrity holds to the let-the-truth-be-heard-by-all-and-let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may principle.

That fact that he accuses me of deceit and manipulation evinces a conscious awareness of his duplicity. Besides, he's already, unwittingly, let certain things slip that shows he's aware of the actuality.

 

[Boss]

What we all know to be necessarily true is that 2 + 2 = 4 in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable belief is knowledge about the human condition, something we know to be true about human cognition!

I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.

My argument was, we can only believe truth, we can't ever know truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be THE truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.

Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be possible truths.

2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't know this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we believe 2+2=4, therefore, it does.

Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't know for certain unless we have faith in what we believe is certain.

There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.

As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.

Actually, Boss, after seeing Justin's post, I read your post again, and I apologize. I need to be clear here because much of what you say is true. I don't disagree with those things. As I already told you, of course, there's a unique, subjective element to everyone's experience of reality, but that doesn't change the fact of the things that are understood by all of us, like 2 + 2 = 4 and The Seven Things! You're not wrong about everything, but your basic premise is wrong or irrelevant.

We have to believe certain things in order to function, do anything in the world beyond the world of ideas, and those things we call knowledge. But you didn't deserve "the no moral right" thing. Your beliefs are sincere. Others are on this thread lying through their teeth about these truths. It's especially outrageous as my position is not to impose any personal biases on anything or tell anyone what they should decide for themselves about what all these things mean taken together.

Nevertheless, the basic essence of your premise would, if it were true, but it's not, undermine the evidence for God's existence. Please don't take offense. I like you, Boss, and it wasn't my intent to put you down. I know I'm not the most sensitive guy on the planet, but I do not gratuitously insult people. But it's important to hold these truths up and see them for what they are. Also, I've already said that objectively speaking we can imagine that everything is an illusion, but what's the practical point of that given that it would make no difference to us even if that seemingly absurd possibility were true.

Also, things like the Big Bang or any scientific theory at all are in fact less certain than the immediate axioms that are in our minds.

Thank you.

I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all. The understanding of the things listed by him are true. What we believe and know are basically the same thing in the end, the real test is are our beliefs true or not.

I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all.

Perhaps the reason you don't get me is, I am not disagreeing with Rawlings (or you). I'm not trying to weaken or refute his argument, it is very compelling and well-reasoned, in my opinion. In fact, I might even say it is a quite brilliant argument. However, it IS an argument.

My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to know truth, to know something absolutely, to be omniscient. At the risk of confusing you even more, objectivity is subjective. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. We assign meanings to words. Objectively means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.

 

[G.T.]

Integrity is admitting you're a coward.

You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.

Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.

You cannot.

You are incapable.

Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.

 

[Taz]

If god existed, this thread wouldn't.

 

[Hollie]

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!

Don't make me use gargantuan text!

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Post 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

Ah. I see you've modified your ignorant piffle. Only a few pages ago, you were ranting about "The Five Things". With that being a failure, you were forced to invent "The Seven Things".

Plowing new furrows in the field of "The Stupid"

 

[Hollie]

I'm not brow beating you. What you said is not objectively true. It's still not objectively true, and because it's not objectively true, it gets in the way of allowing people to see what is objectively true every time they think about these things. You don't have the moral right to superimpose your subjective views and obscure the objective facts regarding the apprehensions that belong to us all about God and truth. I've listed the things that are objectively true in the above. These things alone utterly falsify your premise.

This is not personal with me. It's not about you or me. It's about the truth for us all.

Boss has every right to express his views here, jackass. We all do. And here's where you are utterly deluded -- Your opinions are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Get off your fucking high horse and show some of that humility Christians are suppose to embrace.

I didn't say he didn't, always twisting and dodging and lying, eh? You get off your high horse, Mister, you and Fox!

I said he had no moral right to superimpose his subjective views as if they were absolutes, which do in fact deny the reality of the things that are objectively true for us all, not just some, but all.

He's arguing the opposite and that is false. You know that's false too, and yesterday, in spite of the fact that YOU KNEW these things were true, you made yourself a party to the mealy mouthed mush of Fox's blather about the supposed irrationality and incomprehensibility of my posts.

LIAR! That's how gossiping hens behave. You know these objective facts of human cognition are coherently, objectively, axiomatically and absolutely true for all human knowers/thinkers!

You knew that what she said was not true.

As for her blather about the more complex issues regarding number 4 (the rational and mathematical ramifications of infinity) of the now Seven Things with the actual fact of the TAG established, with G.T.'s bullshit out of the way: she's wrong about those too and so are you.

More lies. In truth, you simply don't understand it. I do. Emily does. Justin does, and there are a few others. You don't have the moral right to call what you damn well know you don't understand well enough false!

You don't have the moral right to falsely accuse me of things I have not done in some sick attempt to discredit the truth that belongs to us all. It's not about me or you. It's about what we may know or see about the idea of God in our minds. Everyone has a right to see these things and make up their minds for themselves, because we're not talking about my mere opinions.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE AND NECESSARILY TRUE FOR ALL.

You don't have the moral right to behave in such a way as to thwart their free expression.

For saying that the things I shown are irrational or incomprehensible is a lie. It's the same thing as saying what you well know to be true is not.

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MR. HIGH HORSE, TO LIE ABOUT THESE THINGS AND STEAL THEM FROM OTHERS?

Security? Would someone call security, please?

 

[Boss]

Integrity is admitting you're a coward.

You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.

Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.

You cannot.

You are incapable.

Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.
This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.

I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.