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.
"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.
The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
The Big Bang did not disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
“All of the events surrounding that event” are not understood!
It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
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.
Your now ridiculous "seven things" I've had to revise because the absurdity was just too good to resist.
Your other cut and paste slogan, the truly laughable "incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument" fails to account for that absurdity being refuted by the claims of others with quantitatively different gods.
For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
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.
There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism. What is comically tragic is that you're unable to make that distinction. That's not uncommon for the most extreme of religious extremists. Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive enterprise built around the competition of ideas. Where are the theistic ones? What I find remarkable is how consistent the “god did it” arguments really are. They are not similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that you came up with them on your own."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.
The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
The Big Bang did not disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
“All of the events surrounding that event” are not understood!
It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
"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.
The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
The Big Bang did not disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
“All of the events surrounding that event” are not understood!
It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
Yeah. What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.
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.
Your now ridiculous "seven things" I've had to revise because the absurdity was just too good to resist.
Your other cut and paste slogan, the truly laughable "incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument" fails to account for that absurdity being refuted by the claims of others with quantitatively different gods.
"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.
The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
The Big Bang did not disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
“All of the events surrounding that event” are not understood!
It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
Yeah. What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.
Dear Justin: And this would be cured by providing Hollie the science proof of spiritual healing
she and others need to see who don't get that this is natural and not magical.
Please see previous msg where I challenge you and Hollie to the Bullring.
Can you please tell me whre I need to clarify or correct anything there
before I copy that msg into the Bullring? I am arguing that using science
to demonstrate that spiritual healing is natural effective and consistent with science
will end this argument that theists are pushing supernatural things that can't be proven,
and will lead to agreements with atheists to use science to demonstrate spiritual healing instead of nonscience arguments.
I've never seen you correct anything. Other than flailing you Pom Poms for Rawling, I've seen you waffle and backtrack as your your nonsensical babbling about "logic" is a fundamentalist shell game with bad analogies, false comparisons and appeals to magic and supernaturalism."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.
The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
The Big Bang did not disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
“All of the events surrounding that event” are not understood!
It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
Yeah. What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.
Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported. That sounds a lot like "proof."
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.
jd: I know you've called us those things.
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.
Why are you still attacking me? Are you too fucking stupid to understand that I believe, like you do, in a spiritual creator, and I am not the enemy? What is your problem? Why are you defiantly rejecting anything I have to say? It makes absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever.
You're a fucking hard head. Plain and simple. You think that whatever you say, whatever your opinion is, is the only VALID argument, and everyone else is wrong. You refuse to even consider what I have said, it just flies right over your silly head because I don't kiss your ass.
Common sense is very often WRONG! It was once "common sense" that the Earth was flat. It was "common sense" that things had gravity because they longed to be near the earth and other things had levity because they longed to be in the heavens. It was "common sense" that things slow down because they get tired. It is "common sense" which leads Atheists to believe life evolved from a single cell.
Objectivity is subjective. I told you when I said it that it sounded contradictory, then I explained exactly what I meant, but you completely ignored that. Instead of trying to understand what I said, you jumped on it as something "dumb to say" and completely missed my point. I can't make you try to see my point because you've bowed up at me and decided that you're just going to disagree with anything I have to say.
But you see... YOU are not the only individual who is reading this post or this thread. Others can read it and determine for themselves if what I said makes sense, and it really doesn't matter what you think.
The "seven things", the fraud created after the fraud of "the five things" was exposed as a total failure is simply a desperate mid-course correction to an earlier fraud.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.
Your now ridiculous "seven things" I've had to revise because the absurdity was just too good to resist.
Your other cut and paste slogan, the truly laughable "incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument" fails to account for that absurdity being refuted by the claims of others with quantitatively different gods.
You dope, it doesn't matter what a person inserts in the place of the God idea. The God idea as the most perfect being possible is in your head and you prove it every time you deny God exists, but I morph. I guess because I'm too dumb to learn and understand things on my own, to dumb to learn how to write better and see the same things that everybody else sees because they are objectively apparent to us all. But maybe, just maybe all these things are an illusion to people like you and Fox who say that what I see to be true is irrational. I'm so confused. Are the seven things objectively true for all or do I morph? Commonsense or morph? No. I think it's commonsense. The only morphing, the only lying, the only idiocy going on around here is with morons like you and Fox. Fox might have more education than me, but she ain't got more commonsense than this plumber, that's for sure. And I don't care what Rawlings says, I don't think Fox is "good people" anymore. I think she's a stuck up hypocrite who thinks it's okay for people to talk to me like I'm crap as she says that the things I believe are stupid but never tells us why they're stupid. I think she's the dummy, lying to herself and to all of us, just like QW lied to me.
How can people be so dumb? The seven things are obviously true.
Well, when your arguments have been exposed as fraud, what's left for you but the whining of a petulant child."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?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.
The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
The Big Bang did not disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
“All of the events surrounding that event” are not understood!
It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
Yeah. What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.
Dear Justin: And this would be cured by providing Hollie the science proof of spiritual healing
she and others need to see who don't get that this is natural and not magical.
Please see previous msg where I challenge you and Hollie to the Bullring.
Can you please tell me whre I need to clarify or correct anything there
before I copy that msg into the Bullring? I am arguing that using science
to demonstrate that spiritual healing is natural effective and consistent with science
will end this argument that theists are pushing supernatural things that can't be proven,
and will lead to agreements with atheists to use science to demonstrate spiritual healing instead of nonscience arguments.
Hollie needs a new brain, that's the healing she's needs. Do you have one handy?
"Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument.
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.
Ahh, so magical spirit realms have a special exemption because they're magical."Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument.
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.
Ahh.. but the spiritual doesn't require creation because 'creation' is a physical concept. It means literally, brought into a physical state of existence. The spiritual doesn't have to be brought into such a state.
The physical exists, it was created... you believe it was created by nothingness out of nothingness for no apparent reason... magic. I believe it was created by spiritual nature which has always existed as spiritual nature.
I don't mock the concept of god, I question the answers that I'm given as pertaining to god. If someone ever gives me solid proof for a god, I'll have no problem believing there's a god in front of such proof. Can't be any fairer than that.Agnostic is the thinking person's position, as there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god.
But you are not an agnostic. You repeatedly mock the idea and concept of God and ridicule those who believe in God. You totally dismiss any possibility of God as silly superstitious nonsense that man dreamed up to console his fears. Now, I will agree... you certainly aren't a "thinking person!"
Geez, someone open a FUCKING WINDOW!!! It's getting hot, hot , hot in here with all this hot air. God is knowledge? Listen, if you don't know, just say so.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.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.
Dear Hollie:
Here is where you are making a leap
You keep defining God = something magic supernatural that you don't believe in
I agree God is not that thing
So why keep starting the proof there
Are you okay with any of these things, which do you agree exists and explains all the forces and events in the world
God = Life, Nature, forces of Nature
God = collective truth, collective universe, sum of all things ever existent, known or unknown
God = Love, energy connecting all people as one humanity, Unconditional Love that naturally exists
God = Good will for all humanity
God = Wisdom (close to God = Truth or God = knowledge as MD equates to God = Creator)
If we agree that God = colelctive body of all knowledge, truth, wisdom
can we start there
And stp before THIS step
A. the leap MD makes by jumping from God = knowledge to God = Creator that has to exist or it runs into contradicitons
B. the leap you make by jumping from God = knowledge to God = some magical supernatural being that can't exist
What is the step BEFORE those conflicting leaps?
God = knowledge or what?
Can you name one thing that determines
what is going on in the world, what is true or false?
Numan said he called the highest default level
"spiritual reality" and another researcher into prayer
called it "the absolute" that even atheists have a concept of but call it different things
What do you call the central or default point of
where truth and knowledge exists? can we start there where we agree
and define and use only terms that mean something consistent to both people?
The Big Bang created "things". Spiritual energy not proven to have been needed."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.
Not proveable.
It is possible for things to have always existed and didn't have a beginning or end.
Boss it is possible and may be necessary to set up the proof process
WITHOUT assuming that God/Creation had a beginning since this is faith based.
As you said we cannot know truth, but can only believe.
Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.Not proveable.
It is possible for things to have always existed and didn't have a beginning or end.
Boss it is possible and may be necessary to set up the proof process
WITHOUT assuming that God/Creation had a beginning since this is faith based.
As you said we cannot know truth, but can only believe.
I agree we can only believe truth and cannot know it. I also agree that God cannot be proven, but virtually nothing can be conclusively proven. We can only believe things are proven (or disproven.)
Studying the logic and parameters of the physical universe, it appears it was created. Some estimate it was around 4.5 billion years ago. The fundamental basis for this logical assumption is the motion of the universe and entropy. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no motion because it defies Newtonian laws of motion for that to be the case. So either the physical universe had a beginning, or something incredible set it into motion. In either case, this began a phenomenon we realize as time and a concept we know as reality.
Entropy is the other piece of evidence. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no entropy because it defies logic. You can't observe something going from order to chaos and conclude it eternally had order. If something is travelling a course it's illogical to say it remains stationary forever.
