Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Actually, it is you religious extremists who are the ones making absolute claims to a magical, supernatural entity.
If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
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.
Commonsense tells us that objectivity is not subjectivity. They are not the same things. A dog is not cat. That is nonsensical. All you're really saying is that we can't have any knowledge without God. I already know that. That's the whole point of the TAG. What someone believes is knowledge to them, but that doesn't mean that what they believe is true knowledge. Commonsense.
This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others. It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.
you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.
.
the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
"exists in our minds" ...
.
False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that God exits is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
What you do with that is up to you.
False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that God exits is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.
.
The axiom is hardwired, at the very least, bioneurologically, as the fundamental laws of thought are universal. One can objectively and justifiably assert that. To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter. Nevertheless, this assertion in no way, shape or form necessarily precludes that the laws of thought persist above the level of the material realm of being.
R: To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter.
so it is your physiology you will be Admitting to the Everlasting and leaving your Spirit behind -
good luck with that Rawlings.
.
"Spiritual energy created physical existence"If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
You've gotten what you believe confused with what we believe. Spiritual energy created physical existence, there is nothing magical or supernatural to that. You are the one who believes in magic-- where something comes from nothing for no reason, nothing explodes into something, bits of matter rearrange for no reason to form self-replicating matter, for no reason, this makes dinosaurs. The magic keeps on happening until humans are produced for no reason, and then... they invent a belief in something that isn't real but it somehow, for no reason, manages to help them evolve into extraordinary entities capable of amazing things through inspiration in what they imagined.
Agnostic is the thinking person's position, as there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god.Actually, it is you religious extremists who are the ones making absolute claims to a magical, supernatural entity.
Explain to us how you, a finite being, knows that God, a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, doesn't exist.
Explain to us how it is logically possible for you to say God doesn't exist. Tell us what this statement really means: "I, Hollie, a finite being, know that God (the Creator) doesn't exist."
"Spiritual energy created physical existence"
You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?
Agnostic is the thinking person's position, as there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god.
If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.While I did thank you for the post. Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term God as Creator, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling. Moreover, the descriptor Creator necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question. Hence, Creator!
These are proofs, logical proofs. Science doesn't prove things at all. Logic proves or disproves things. Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible. It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!
For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
Still cock blocking, I see. Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
You're right. Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans. I know you've called us those things. If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too. All of your insults are true. Theists are worthless, stupid pigs. They are never right. They are wrong about everything. You are the only one who is ever right. Amen. May the force be with you.
"Spiritual energy created physical existence"
You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?
No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.
I haven't been arguing from the concept that everything or anything that exists was created by a Creator. That is a different argument from what the OP asks. But until you can PROVE that everything that exists did not have a Creator or any of the other 'certainties' you express, you are whistling in the dark and coming from a position of faith as much as anybody else posting on this thread.
Dear Breezewood: I already posted a reply querying how you came up with
this comparison to Hitler which seems the exact opposite of my nature.
I apologize that the miscommunication between us got so far off the mark
that you got the opposite impression of what I was trying to say.
Please reply to that msg and explain how I am anything like Hitler,
I am most curious to know.
As for this message, I will try to backtrack and find out where we talked past
each other and crossed wires.
1. weren't you saying that the belief in the Christian God
was falsely hardwired?
if not I apologize because I thought you were
negating MD statement about God as Creator
2. Now I saw your msg where you are saying the Almighty exists
but that MD is misportraying God
So my questions are this
a. do you agree that MD's perception of God is hardwired or not
b. if it can change then why are you insulting him or me as if that is going
to inspire anyone to change?
c. if it cannot change then why are you insulting him or me
d. And WHY can't both ways of perceiving God co-exist?
What is WRONG with this
A. atheists and nontheists who see laws and nature in terms of science
B. Buddhist who see spiritual laws in terms of Wisdom and nature that is interconnected
C. pagans who may see the world as life energy in the Creation or Mother Earth itself
D. Christians who personify God as a Creator and distinguish this role from Creation
E. Constitutionalists who look at laws as coming from Natural Laws and Human Nature
where some attribute to God as the source and some say these laws are self-existent
Why can't we focus on the laws we DO agree with
and not haggle over how we see the source of where they came from?
The problem you share with other religious extremists is that the little science knowledge you have is filtered through creationist ministries. Your really naive and just plain ignorant description of biological evolution is straight from the charlatans at the ICR.If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
You've gotten what you believe confused with what we believe. Spiritual energy created physical existence, there is nothing magical or supernatural to that. You are the one who believes in magic-- where something comes from nothing for no reason, nothing explodes into something, bits of matter rearrange for no reason to form self-replicating matter, for no reason, this makes dinosaurs. The magic keeps on happening until humans are produced for no reason, and then... they invent a belief in something that isn't real but it somehow, for no reason, manages to help them evolve into extraordinary entities capable of amazing things through inspiration in what they imagined.
"Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument."Spiritual energy created physical existence"
You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?
No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.
Actually, it is you religious extremists who are the ones making absolute claims to a magical, supernatural entity.Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
Amen. May the force be with you
As with all religious fundamentalists, you presume that the gods of your familial, geographic circumstances are "the gods". It's actually comical to watch as you cut and paste the same tired slogans of your hastily and carelessly assembled "seven things" after your amateurish "five things" disaster was shot down in flames.I haven't been arguing from the concept that everything or anything that exists was created by a Creator. That is a different argument from what the OP asks. But until you can PROVE that everything that exists did not have a Creator or any of the other 'certainties' you express, you are whistling in the dark and coming from a position of faith as much as anybody else posting on this thread.
"Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?"
1. The construct God means Creator! That's what the term God denoting the construct in its objectively highest sense means: a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist.
2. In formal logic, the term argument means proof. Logical arguments are logical proofs! If the premises of any given syllogistic proof are demonstrably or pragmatically held to be justifiable true knowledge and are coherently related to one another and to the conclusion, the logical proof and it's conclusion are held to be valid until such time that an inherent contradiction is deduced from them or any one of the premises is falsified.
We do not prove or disprove things in science. We tentatively verify or falsify things in science. We prove or disprove things in logic, and in logic only. If you're gong to use terms like prove or proof in the informal sense, then tell us that you are using these terms in the informal sense; otherwise, your posts are confusing, especially to the atheist who understands science, mathematics and logic. Check?
Hence:
"Is There One Sound/Valid [factually and coherently justifiable] Syllogistic Argument [logical proof] For The Existence of God [a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist]
Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument: from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It is necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its objectively highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that (1) the objectively highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that (2) he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.
That's how you handle the Cosmological Argument . . . then assert "The Seven Things". Better yet, start with "The Seven Things," the incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument; you know, the leading argument that the Bible makes.
"Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument."Spiritual energy created physical existence"
You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?
No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.
If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.
We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.
"Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?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.
Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
