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

[Taz]

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.

No, because it's true.

 

[Hollie]

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 Posts 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.

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.

The idea in your mind and in my mind and in everybody else's mind logically holds that He exists!

no more than the possibility for any metaphysical existence including one's own Spirit - that is why chritianity creates a physical entity to solidify as real what otherwise are their meritless beliefs. - Sinner.


no God is necessary and is factually exclusionary for the "hardwired" pursuit of life's existence / extension post physiology and if not possible the existence of a nondescript Almighty becomes as relevant as Santa Clause.

.

Why do you keep repeating this? I don't even really know what it means anyway. It's convoluted. If God exists that's significant. "The Seven Things" (with the two that we can now add to the list) are in fact objectively and axiomatically true for all sound and developmentally mature minds.

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.

Actually, bible thumping zealot, I need to further modify your previously modified "The Five Things", AKA, "The Seven Things", hereinafter known as "The Things We Keep Changing Because They're Been Shown To Be Viciously Circular and Pointless Piffle".

6a. It is not logically possible to say or think or contemplate or consider or propound or advance any consideration that Zeus (The God) (the Creator) (the all-knowing, all-seeing, most beneficent True God of The Gods) doesn't exist whether He actually exists or not... "because I say so"

(thus, decree by Ayatollah, Field Marshall General, Jehovah's Witness Neighborhood Canvas Committee Leader, Master of a Kingdom Hall (drum roll please), M. Pompous Rawling)

 

[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?

Correction: the term in your capitalized text above shall be amended as follows:

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MR. HIGH HORSE, [MR. FANCY PANTS -ed.] TO LIE ABOUT THESE THINGS AND STEAL THEM FROM OTHERS?

 

[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.

No, because it's true.

No, because it's true.
Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question.

What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.

 

[Hollie]

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.

No, because it's true.

No, because it's true.
Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question.

What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.

The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.

 

[Taz]

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.

No, because it's true.

No, because it's true.
Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question.

What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

 

[Boss]

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

 

[Taz]

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

 

[Boss]

The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.

This is your opinion and I don't think you are 100% wrong. Humans like to rationalize things and we are very creative and imaginative. This is why I am not religious and don't subscribe to any particular organized religious belief.

Where we disagree is on the question of a spiritual imperative. I believe it is not possible humans invented this and have imagined it for all their existence. One reason is because of the apparent fundamental benefit humans have gained through spirituality. The other is because I have never seen evidence humans invented spirituality.

"Invented to address fears" might very well apply to various religious incarnations of God.. it doesn't apply to intrinsic human spirituality. Why? Not because "I say so" but because the invention (which wouldn't be real) would do nothing to mitigate whatever is feared. So it's simply illogical.

 

[Boss]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

 

[Hollie]

The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.

This is your opinion and I don't think you are 100% wrong. Humans like to rationalize things and we are very creative and imaginative. This is why I am not religious and don't subscribe to any particular organized religious belief.

Where we disagree is on the question of a spiritual imperative. I believe it is not possible humans invented this and have imagined it for all their existence. One reason is because of the apparent fundamental benefit humans have gained through spirituality. The other is because I have never seen evidence humans invented spirituality.

"Invented to address fears" might very well apply to various religious incarnations of God.. it doesn't apply to intrinsic human spirituality. Why? Not because "I say so" but because the invention (which wouldn't be real) would do nothing to mitigate whatever is feared. So it's simply illogical.

It actually does apply since your invention of "intrinsic human spirituality" is simply your invention of the gods. It's ok to be honest. There are too many inventions of gods to count. Your new fangled gods are as real to you as the gods of others are real to them.

Are your gods the variety of really angry gods who are going to return with a big can of whoop-ass?

 

[Boss]

The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.

This is your opinion and I don't think you are 100% wrong. Humans like to rationalize things and we are very creative and imaginative. This is why I am not religious and don't subscribe to any particular organized religious belief.

Where we disagree is on the question of a spiritual imperative. I believe it is not possible humans invented this and have imagined it for all their existence. One reason is because of the apparent fundamental benefit humans have gained through spirituality. The other is because I have never seen evidence humans invented spirituality.

"Invented to address fears" might very well apply to various religious incarnations of God.. it doesn't apply to intrinsic human spirituality. Why? Not because "I say so" but because the invention (which wouldn't be real) would do nothing to mitigate whatever is feared. So it's simply illogical.

It actually does apply since your invention of "intrinsic human spirituality" is simply your invention of the gods. It's ok to be honest. There are too many inventions of gods to count. Your new fangled gods are as real to you as the gods of others are real to them.

Are your gods the variety of really angry gods who are going to return with a big can of whoop-ass?

There is nothing "newfangled" about what I believe. In fact, this is precisely one of the reasons I believe it. You cannot define the point in human history where we supposedly "invented" human spirituality.

Now.... What Spiritual Energy has in store for man, I have no way of knowing. I don't believe in a God with humanistic attributes like "anger" or "jealousy" just like I don't believe in a God who "cares" or "loves." I do, however, believe in Spiritual Energy and I think this energy compels humans in specific direction of... for lack of a better word, righteousness. Now, maybe it is to facilitate the power of spiritual energy, like electricity prefers to flow through conductive material? Or maybe it is to prevent an equally strong negative spiritual force from consuming us? But I don't have to understand it's purpose, it's not important to me.

 

[Hollie]

The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.

This is your opinion and I don't think you are 100% wrong. Humans like to rationalize things and we are very creative and imaginative. This is why I am not religious and don't subscribe to any particular organized religious belief.

Where we disagree is on the question of a spiritual imperative. I believe it is not possible humans invented this and have imagined it for all their existence. One reason is because of the apparent fundamental benefit humans have gained through spirituality. The other is because I have never seen evidence humans invented spirituality.

"Invented to address fears" might very well apply to various religious incarnations of God.. it doesn't apply to intrinsic human spirituality. Why? Not because "I say so" but because the invention (which wouldn't be real) would do nothing to mitigate whatever is feared. So it's simply illogical.

It actually does apply since your invention of "intrinsic human spirituality" is simply your invention of the gods. It's ok to be honest. There are too many inventions of gods to count. Your new fangled gods are as real to you as the gods of others are real to them.

Are your gods the variety of really angry gods who are going to return with a big can of whoop-ass?

There is nothing "newfangled" about what I believe. In fact, this is precisely one of the reasons I believe it. You cannot define the point in human history where we supposedly "invented" human spirituality.

Now.... What Spiritual Energy has in store for man, I have no way of knowing. I don't believe in a God with humanistic attributes like "anger" or "jealousy" just like I don't believe in a God who "cares" or "loves." I do, however, believe in Spiritual Energy and I think this energy compels humans in specific direction of... for lack of a better word, righteousness. Now, maybe it is to facilitate the power of spiritual energy, like electricity prefers to flow through conductive material? Or maybe it is to prevent an equally strong negative spiritual force from consuming us? But I don't have to understand it's purpose, it's not important to me.

Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number. Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4. But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds. This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.

Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility. However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance. And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".

 

[Taz]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

So in your world, nothing is true?

 

[Taz]

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number. Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4. But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds. This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.

Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility. However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance. And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".

There are probably millions of other habitable planets in the universe that harbor life. So it's not by chance that earth exists.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number. Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4. But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds. This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.

Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility. However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance. And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".

There are probably millions of other habitable planets in the universe that harbor life. So it's not by chance that earth exists.

Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there. But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists. (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)

 

[Hollie]

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number. Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4. But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds. This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.

Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.

How much more absurd is it to use math to define God? Pretty much an exercise in futility. However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance. And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".

There are probably millions of other habitable planets in the universe that harbor life. So it's not by chance that earth exists.

Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there. But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists. (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)

I think "chance" is the wrong term to describe the existence, position, location, etc., of this planet. All of those elements are a function of complex interactions of gravity, amounts of gas, dust and debris following the "big bang" and even forces still being discovered at CERN.

 

[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.

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.

He called his opinion an axiom.

If you're familiar with the term, you know its not an axiom. That's where its been defeated, because a logical proofs premises have to be absolutely true in order to prove what they purport to prove, and opinions are not absolute and it surely isn't an axiom.

 

[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

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

Yes Justin, to those of us who already understand and are looking back to frame it in perspective.
But for audience members not starting where we are, we are making leaps and skipping steps to them.
I understand that by starting with the conclusion then you work through the process from there.
I am talking about how to reach the audience that got left behind at step 1.

That's fine, though, there is plenty of work to do to gather the minds together who are ok with the proof as is,
I suggest to MD to start a steering committee of people from different faith backgrounds who can deal with
this proof and the process around it. Then use heads or teams in each approach to reach and reconcile with people who don't get this at all.

MD is like the professor trying to present material,
and needs a whole truckload of grad students in every field to work with others who don't
get what the prof is saying in his weird funky accent using examples they can't follow
and don't see how any of this applies to them. It's still enough to START the conversation
but Justin PLEASE UNDERSTAND that not all people process this the same way.

Other people like my friend Daron are still not over the Pentecostal preaching Uncle who
mortified him and the family at his Dad's funeral by announcing they were both going to hell.
Daron spent his Dad's last dying days cleaning up after his colonoscopy and being the only one
to walk his Dad through that while all the other fine Christians in the family stayed away and
enjoyed their heavenly peace of mind by avoiding suffering, and they did go through hell.
but to show up and instead of offering comfort and encouragement to rise above, to use the
funeral to preach and condemn someone to hell when they are already there, do you see
that's going to turn someone against the whole Christian thing in any form.

so to deal with people who don't get or trust the judgment of Christians.
it is wiser to start with where they are and why. and undo some of the damage and
negative perceptions ENGRAINED in peoples minds as THEIR reality.

This REALITY can change but the wounds have to heal first and cant always
be rushed with a miracle cure overnight. Most people ESPECIALLY Secular Gentiles
go through steps in a process of revisiting and healing each memory that told them
to stay away from Christians who are bigoted mean hypocrite jerkholes.

This is not an overnight fix, but takes time and individual unique steps to heal the hurts.
If you and MD are not gifted in this area, maybe Boss and me can work on that level
and process since we understand how people come in with different realities.

maybe that is not your job to address. so we need to form teams
and I even know a JW Elder who may be open since his best friend is a
secular gentile Constitutionalist and they understand they have different backgrounds for a reason.

I know some Church of Christ members concerned about addressing the JW and
liked the idea of coming together to work out longstanding issues to reconcile in Christ.

There are many different steps these people and groups need to go through
to get on the same page. So the process AROUND the proof is much larger and diverse.

The final test is at the END if people can be on the same page with you me MD Boss et al.
then we know we have forgiven and resolved our differences about God Jesus the Bible
Christianity religion etc. So it may be used to launch the process and separate
sheep from goats, but the process to work through issues and reach resolution is much
greater. the proof may also be used at the end to show we are all on the same page AFTER
we hash out all the issues with religion it brings up. I'm talking a worldwide consensus
so Jews and Muslims, Dems and GOP, blacks and whites have to make peace also to unite.

That's far beyond what your proof outlines guidelines for doing!
but thats what it takes to form a consensus on God through agreement in Christ.
all grievances will need to be rebuked and redressed because they are interconnected
in one collective spiritual peace process including everyone.

Thanks Justin you handle your part
and I will call together the people to handle the different tribes.
Yours truly,
Love, Emily