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

[M.D. Rawlings]

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".

So let us review a previous post that summarized what you called—what did you say again?—"irrational and incomprehensible" in the light of that last post addressed to you:

You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to your anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you and QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.

Are you challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals? After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken. These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.

Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like perfection or eternity or absoluteness . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically and mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!

What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?​

 

[Justin Davis]

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

As for the idea of God, that's nonsense. You didn't understand did you? The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought. It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist. The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful. Nil probability? You just made that up out of thin air. That's not why they don't believe He exists. They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.

Dear Justin: God exists by logic where you and I and MD agreed to define God equals something we agreed exists.

Some ppl don't agree with that definition.

I think Tuatara may come from the same school of thought
as Godel, who I cited and GT and PercySunshine also:

That God meaning something infinite
can neither be proven nor disproven by man's finite means

Only if we AGREE to use God to mean something we AGREE exists
like collective truth, laws and life then we can prove it using logic because
we already defined these things and agreed they exist and align consistentlyl

no need to take issues with Tuatara who is
merely pointing out what I said and also what
MD said that science doesn't prove anything,
that's why he uses the logic proof with global symbols
that covers all cases. that's fine but the people lik eyou
and me who follow MD TAG proof AGREE to define
God as such, so this excludes people who don't agree to that
opening definition. thanks, this is why I offer to use the science
approach to demonstrate spiritual healing for poeple who need to see
some concrete science and don't relate to defining it in terms of logic.

Rawlings already proved that wrong in his earlier posts and proved that wrong again. It's self-evident to this plumber. Why are there so many people here with no commonsense? God would have to be infinite in His being and the idea that we would have to guess about that or can't prove it is the silliest thing I read on this thread. Infinity is all around us, everywhere we look. What do you mean we can't understand infinity? It's in our finite minds and we've been doing the ideas and mathematics of infinity for a long time easy. Obviously God would have to be greater than our finite minds. If we can do complex calculations in our minds about infinity He is doing that and other things infinitely greater. If God exists He's obviously telling us that He's infinite, unlimited in His understanding and power. The debate on that is over. There never should have been any doubt bout this in the first place. Commonsense. Commonsense. Commonsense. We know God would have to be infinitely great than infinite things that exist in our minds and in the universe.

 

[Justin Davis]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.

That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.

If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.

Yes, I already said there are no absolutes, we cannot KNOW truth, and everything in physical science is a hypothesis. That's why my comment included "at least as much as anything can actually be proven." We can't even "prove" reality exists, it might simply be an illusion... In fact, Einstein also said THAT!

For someone who says there are no absolutes you sure do believe in a lot of absolutes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

As for the idea of God, that's nonsense. You didn't understand did you? The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought. It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist. The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful. Nil probability? You just made that up out of thin air. That's not why they don't believe He exists. They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.

Dear Justin: God exists by logic where you and I and MD agreed to define God equals something we agreed exists.

Some ppl don't agree with that definition.

I think Tuatara may come from the same school of thought
as Godel, who I cited and GT and PercySunshine also:

That God meaning something infinite
can neither be proven nor disproven by man's finite means

Only if we AGREE to use God to mean something we AGREE exists
like collective truth, laws and life then we can prove it using logic because
we already defined these things and agreed they exist and align consistentlyl

no need to take issues with Tuatara who is
merely pointing out what I said and also what
MD said that science doesn't prove anything,
that's why he uses the logic proof with global symbols
that covers all cases. that's fine but the people lik eyou
and me who follow MD TAG proof AGREE to define
God as such, so this excludes people who don't agree to that
opening definition. thanks, this is why I offer to use the science
approach to demonstrate spiritual healing for poeple who need to see
some concrete science and don't relate to defining it in terms of logic.

Rawlings already proved that wrong in his earlier posts and proved that wrong again. It's self-evident to this plumber. Why are there so many people here with no commonsense? God would have to be infinite in His being and the idea that we would have to guess about that or can't prove it is the silliest thing I read on this thread. Infinity is all around us, everywhere we look. What do you mean we can't understand infinity? It's in our finite minds and we've been doing the ideas and mathematics of infinity for a long time easy. Obviously God would have to be greater than our finite minds. If we can do complex calculations in our minds about infinity He is doing that and other things infinitely greater. If God exists He's obviously telling us that He's infinite, unlimited in His understanding and power. The debate on that is over. There never should have been any doubt bout this in the first place. Commonsense. Commonsense. Commonsense. We know God would have to be infinitely great than infinite things that exist in our minds and in the universe.

Hi Justin
the way MD explained it
A. he said we "cannot use Science to prove it."
Science can only verify or falsify but not prove all examples which are infinite.

So this is what the atheists are bringing up
that no one has ever used Science to prove it!

So we agree on that.

B. We can use logic to symbolize it globally.
And here, as long as we define God consistently,
then we can agree God = something we agree exists.

What we don't agree on is how to symbolize
and define God to show this is consistent.

is that clear?

Because we don't agree on the definitions
MD cites with the TAG

that is why I offer to go back to A
and use Spiritual Healing as a subset of God/Christianity
that we CAN use Science to verify.

So we can do part of A and explain taht
part to atheists who need to see science verify something
in Christianity is real.

Justin can we try that first?
Try proving something using science
and after we agree on that,
go back and try B again using the logic
and definitions of God to represent the infinite level.

Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

Even MD is in agreement that science cannot prove, but can only verify or falsify.

The closest I can offer to using science to prove something in Christianity
is to replicate studies on Spiritual Healing to show this works consistently
with natural science and medicine as a process that follows predictable steps and stages in a pattern.

MD wants to focus on logic and definitions of God to prove on that level.

For those who want to try science, I say to apply this to spiritual healing
and yes, we can go that route, it isn't perfect and doesn't cover all cases
just because you keep proving each one you study. But God = Creator
doesn't cover all cases either and it still works to get it one case and then "infer" that it applies to
all other definitions of God.

it's close enough

So for people who want
A. logical proof by definition ==> use TAG and get on same page with MD
B. science proof by verifying ==> use medical studies on spiritual healing
C. case by case examples of applying Christian healing to real life conflicts
==> apply this same process to resolving religious and political conflicts in real life

C is the most empirical level. Take any conflict such as ISIS, forced abortions in China,
genocidal tribal wars and rapes in Africa, drug and human trafficking across the American
continents and countries, and show that spiritual healing cures the root cause of ills
and brings peace by restoring justice and good faith relations.

So if we are going to prove the Kingdom of God or world peace is established globally
then in real practice that means resolving ALL conflicts and showing peace is made through Christ.

I say we start with B and get what this spiritual healing process is.

Then it can be applied to A to reconcile definitions of God and get on the same page
and it can be applied to C to show real life examples of curing sickenss and healing relations.

That is the proof process I propose to MD and to other people I am asking to join in teams around this.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hollie said:

“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”

Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.

And so, his nonsense utterly falsified by my previous post he blathers his this nonsense again.

Once again:

Actually, that's nonsense. It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.

So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.

Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.

As I have written elsewhere:
Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.
All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!

In all forms of logic the proposition that from nothing, nothing comes would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.

Logic proceeds from justifiable true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.

The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!

Proceed, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.
​

 

[G.T.]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

Even MD is in agreement that science cannot prove, but can only verify or falsify.

The closest I can offer to using science to prove something in Christianity
is to replicate studies on Spiritual Healing to show this works consistently
with natural science and medicine as a process that follows predictable steps and stages in a pattern.

MD wants to focus on logic and definitions of God to prove on that level.

For those who want to try science, I say to apply this to spiritual healing
and yes, we can go that route, it isn't perfect and doesn't cover all cases
just because you keep proving each one you study. But God = Creator
doesn't cover all cases either and it still works to get it one case and then "infer" that it applies to
all other definitions of God.

it's close enough

So for people who want
A. logical proof by definition ==> use TAG and get on same page with MD
B. science proof by verifying ==> use medical studies on spiritual healing
C. case by case examples of applying Christian healing to real life conflicts
==> apply this same process to resolving religious and political conflicts in real life

C is the most empirical level. Take any conflict such as ISIS, forced abortions in China,
genocidal tribal wars and rapes in Africa, drug and human trafficking across the American
continents and countries, and show that spiritual healing cures the root cause of ills
and brings peace by restoring justice and good faith relations.

So if we are going to prove the Kingdom of God or world peace is established globally
then in real practice that means resolving ALL conflicts and showing peace is made through Christ.

I say we start with B and get what this spiritual healing process is.

Then it can be applied to A to reconcile definitions of God and get on the same page
and it can be applied to C to show real life examples of curing sickenss and healing relations.

That is the proof process I propose to MD and to other people I am asking to join in teams around this.

Md's logic fails.

It begs the question, which is a logical fallacy. It also starts with an unproven premise. You cannot as an absolute state that we were 'created' as opposed to a wide range of other existence theories - until you FIRST and absolutely disprove the other possibilities.

I don't know why such a simple concept is so hard to grasp.

Md's logic is not sound, it is a fallacy. A quite obvious one.

Want to know how to tell if I'm right? Have him disprove as an absolute (key word) that existence in some form or other didn't 'always' exist, thus was not "created" thus god cannot be said to be 'creator' in an absolute logical proof.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie said:

“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”

Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.

And so, his nonsense utterly falsified by my previous post he blathers his this nonsense again.

Once again:

Actually, that's nonsense. It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.

So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.

Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.

As I have written elsewhere:
Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.
All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!

In all forms of logic the proposition that from nothing, nothing comes would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.

Logic proceeds from justifiable true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.

The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!

Proceed, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.
​

And once again because you chose to sidestep direct refutations to your pointless blathering.

Oh, you poor dear. What a shame that your nonsensical "the seven things" has been exposed as a fraud.

How strange that you're carrying on with failed lectures regarding "objective facts of rational necessity" when those elements are not a requirement in your spirit realms and inventions of supernatural gawds.

Your deductive and perceptive skills are non-existent. On the contrary, my arguments are supported by evidence and reason.

But what does your argument assert? Nothing except “the gawds did it”.

Your assertion of your various "gawds" does not tell us what gawds are, it tells us what gawds are not. Gawds are not part of the natural world, they are part of some magical, supernatural. Since the natural world incorporates the rational (as per reliable perception is concerned) then by definition the supernatural must define the irrational.

And in fact, your really skewed and twisted inventions including your fraudulent "five things" later trashed in favor of the more deeply fraudulent "seven things" is really a testament to your really bankrupt ability to make a coherent argument.

 

[Justin Davis]

There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.
Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.

So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.

You know that analogy is false or you couldn't even make the distinction. The idea of God you have in your mind is not a little fairy and the questions you asked me in the other post are silly. You're wait late in this debate. Your stuff is even worse than what the other atheists have said. We're way past first grade.

Quoting Rawlings:

"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. "

__________________________

You've got nothing. There'll be no fairy talk or how just any god can be plugged in. All of that silliness is over. That's not what you or anyone else things about when they think about the real idea of as the necessarily greatest being possible.

Bong. Get serious or find another place to play.

 

[Hollie]

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.

Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement. I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.
Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.

So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.

You know that analogy is false or you couldn't even make the distinction. The idea of God you have in your mind is not a little fairy and the questions you asked me in the other post are silly. You're wait late in this debate. Your stuff is even worse than what the other atheists have said. We're way past first grade.

Quoting Rawlings:

"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. "

__________________________

You've got nothing. There'll be no fairy talk or how just any god can be plugged in. All of that silliness is over. That's not what you or anyone else things about when they think about the real idea of as the necessarily greatest being possible.

Bong. Get serious or find another place to play.

"Quoting" your cult leader? That's so cute.

"Quoting" a failed, circular argument, one that was intended to revive a dead " five things" argument is a joke.

Go flail your Pom Poms elsewhere.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

Even MD is in agreement that science cannot prove, but can only verify or falsify.

The closest I can offer to using science to prove something in Christianity
is to replicate studies on Spiritual Healing to show this works consistently
with natural science and medicine as a process that follows predictable steps and stages in a pattern.

MD wants to focus on logic and definitions of God to prove on that level.

For those who want to try science, I say to apply this to spiritual healing
and yes, we can go that route, it isn't perfect and doesn't cover all cases
just because you keep proving each one you study. But God = Creator
doesn't cover all cases either and it still works to get it one case and then "infer" that it applies to
all other definitions of God.

it's close enough

So for people who want
A. logical proof by definition ==> use TAG and get on same page with MD
B. science proof by verifying ==> use medical studies on spiritual healing
C. case by case examples of applying Christian healing to real life conflicts
==> apply this same process to resolving religious and political conflicts in real life

C is the most empirical level. Take any conflict such as ISIS, forced abortions in China,
genocidal tribal wars and rapes in Africa, drug and human trafficking across the American
continents and countries, and show that spiritual healing cures the root cause of ills
and brings peace by restoring justice and good faith relations.

So if we are going to prove the Kingdom of God or world peace is established globally
then in real practice that means resolving ALL conflicts and showing peace is made through Christ.

I say we start with B and get what this spiritual healing process is.

Then it can be applied to A to reconcile definitions of God and get on the same page
and it can be applied to C to show real life examples of curing sickenss and healing relations.

That is the proof process I propose to MD and to other people I am asking to join in teams around this.

Md's logic fails.

It begs the question, which is a logical fallacy. It also starts with an unproven premise. You cannot as an absolute state that we were 'created' as opposed to a wide range of other existence theories - until you FIRST and absolutely disprove the other possibilities.

I don't know why such a simple concept is so hard to grasp.

Md's logic is not sound, it is a fallacy. A quite obvious one.

Want to know how to tell if I'm right? Have him disprove as an absolute (key word) that existence in some form or other didn't 'always' exist, thus was not "created" thus god cannot be said to be 'creator' in an absolute logical proof.

Dear GT:
If you notice the TAG approach A works for MD, Justin and others who already agree with that definition of
God = knowledge/Creator or some variation of that or can forgive the biases in the approach etc.

So fine, let that approach work for the A team.

For the B team, you and I and others may be more open to taking
something that Christians claim, and Demonstrate this is consistent with natural science.

So fine, let's use approach B for that B team.
I actually think this will be the most helpful because of
practical benefit that applies to more cases that affect more people.

Then there are people who don't trust Christians or care for A or B
and just want to see proof that people can make peace in Christ Jesus
and bring on this whole "Kingdom of God" in real life.

So for each case that prevents people from believing in forgiveness
to heal relations and bring peace, let's prove cases under C case by case
to reach those people who would change their minds if they see it work in real life.

I think that will follow once B is proven
and then people want to see B applied to different case;
curing cancer, criminal illness, political or religious abuse, etc. etc.

So GT if you don't see any point to approach A then don't go there.

Let that be for people who come to agreement among themselves,
like theists who need to agree about God = Wisdom or God = Life
and agree that still means the same God as the Source of Life, Wisdom, Knowledge etc.

I'm happy to work with you and Hollie and others who would
LIKE to see science prove SOMETHING about these claims!

I think this will make sense and reach more people than A will.
But A is necessary to get all the theists on the same page, so let it be for those folks!

Thanks GT
Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Hollie said:

“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”

Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.

And so, his nonsense utterly falsified by my previous post he blathers his this nonsense again.

Once again:

Actually, that's nonsense. It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.

So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.

Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.

As I have written elsewhere:
Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.
All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!

In all forms of logic the proposition that from nothing, nothing comes would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.

Logic proceeds from justifiable true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.

The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!

Proceed, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.
​

And once again because you chose to sidestep direct refutations to your pointless blathering.

Oh, you poor dear. What a shame that your nonsensical "the seven things" has been exposed as a fraud.

How strange that you're carrying on with failed lectures regarding "objective facts of rational necessity" when those elements are not a requirement in your spirit realms and inventions of supernatural gawds.

Your deductive and perceptive skills are non-existent. On the contrary, my arguments are supported by evidence and reason.

But what does your argument assert? Nothing except “the gawds did it”.

Your assertion of your various "gawds" does not tell us what gawds are, it tells us what gawds are not. Gawds are not part of the natural world, they are part of some magical, supernatural. Since the natural world incorporates the rational (as per reliable perception is concerned) then by definition the supernatural must define the irrational.

And in fact, your really skewed and twisted inventions including your fraudulent "five things" later trashed in favor of the more deeply fraudulent "seven things" is really a testament to your really bankrupt ability to make a coherent argument.

OK Hollie so let's prove to MD that a different approach works better and reaches more people.

I proposed approach B to demonstrate how Spiritual Healing works by applying science studies.

Let's do this, and show how many more people respond to SCIENCE proof rather than just LOGIC definitions.

In fact, MD will still get his way, because after more conflicts are resolved and healed by
understanding approach B, then this will help stop conflicts and rejection over approach A.

But he will be wrong that Science cannot be used to help make these points.
Because either directly it will be used to "verify or falsify" teachings in Christianity,
and indirectly by teaching how spiritual healing works by forgiveness,
this applies to resolving conflicts over Approach A anyway!

So either way, it helps resolve conflicts so more people
reach agreement on the definitions he lists in A.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

Even MD is in agreement that science cannot prove, but can only verify or falsify.

The closest I can offer to using science to prove something in Christianity
is to replicate studies on Spiritual Healing to show this works consistently
with natural science and medicine as a process that follows predictable steps and stages in a pattern.

MD wants to focus on logic and definitions of God to prove on that level.

For those who want to try science, I say to apply this to spiritual healing
and yes, we can go that route, it isn't perfect and doesn't cover all cases
just because you keep proving each one you study. But God = Creator
doesn't cover all cases either and it still works to get it one case and then "infer" that it applies to
all other definitions of God.

it's close enough

So for people who want
A. logical proof by definition ==> use TAG and get on same page with MD
B. science proof by verifying ==> use medical studies on spiritual healing
C. case by case examples of applying Christian healing to real life conflicts
==> apply this same process to resolving religious and political conflicts in real life

C is the most empirical level. Take any conflict such as ISIS, forced abortions in China,
genocidal tribal wars and rapes in Africa, drug and human trafficking across the American
continents and countries, and show that spiritual healing cures the root cause of ills
and brings peace by restoring justice and good faith relations.

So if we are going to prove the Kingdom of God or world peace is established globally
then in real practice that means resolving ALL conflicts and showing peace is made through Christ.

I say we start with B and get what this spiritual healing process is.

Then it can be applied to A to reconcile definitions of God and get on the same page
and it can be applied to C to show real life examples of curing sickenss and healing relations.

That is the proof process I propose to MD and to other people I am asking to join in teams around this.

Dear M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis
Boss and GT, percysunshine and Hollie,
TAZ and Tuatara, BreezeWood and Friends:

This is the three point outline I will present to a friend
who has a network of counselors working on spiritual outreach
to resolve issues that are holding people back from uniting in spirit.

I will PM to M.D. and Boss the email and phone number of my friend,
and ask to set up video conferencing to start putting teams together.

It seems Justin Davis Boss and M.D. and I are okay with approach A
but for those who want to see hard science I am proposing B.

Justin and Hollie if you are okay leading up the team to set up
studies on Spiritual Healing for Approach B, I trust you to make
sure the set up is not biases for or against to fail or succeed unnaturally,
but will truly be set up normal as any other medical study on any other
form of therapy to see the process and effects on the subjects.

I will ask Boss and M.D. about setting up a website to
organize a consensus among theists on Approach A.

This is not for everyone, but approach B should appeal and make
sense to a broader audience. And once we prove the correlation
between forgiveness with spiritual healing/reconciliation, then we
can apply Approach B to demonstrate/verify case by case examples
of real life healing of physical, social and mental ills in Approach C.
(ie not just proving cases in a study but picking real life issues
and demonstrating how forgiveness correlates with resolving
conflicts and unforgiveness correlates with failure to solve problems)

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

. . . absolutely irrational and incomprehensible. . . .

It's only comments like this that have ever raised my ire, for all your talk that I have gratuitously insulted persons on this thread.

Now, as promised, I'm going to directly address the core of your fallacious criticisms. I'm going to make sure that you're laced up on the facts and on how things are going to go between you and me from here on out should you choose to stick around. We're going to be very clear on some things, you and I.

First, lose the risible stupidity that the only objectively defensible standard of divine attribution does not constitute the only open-ended perspective that does not subjectively impose any preconceived notions that would beg the question, nitwit, which is the crux of your inability to understand what I'm talking about in terms of infinity. In other words, the essence of my alleged irrationality is in fact your ignorance and intellect bigotry: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044563/

You will not give me any more of your lip about my posts being irrational or incomprehensible with impunity. In the face of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin demonstrated by me (#2697, #2599, #2600), you have no business telling anybody that my posts are not sound. You couldn't possibly have any practical counter to these things.

I strongly recommend you carefully read the posts in the parenthesis in the above and get a clue!

I am in fact an authority on conceptual analysis, mathematical logic, theology and the pertinent history of ideas and events, and have a solid background in the pertinent science. There's no pretense here, and the terms that I use are correct. They'll be no more of this hysterical tripe about me trying to impress you or anyone else. I'm impervious to the herd mentality and the cheap tactics of attacking the man.

Bottom line: I'm no less constitutionally prone to logical errors in expression or in fact than anyone else,. Hence I have no problem whatsoever in anyone bringing such errors to my attention that I might be improved. There'll be no more of your pretentious blather implying that you are in any position to access the validity of my posts from your one-dimensional perspective of time, more to the point, as if you understood the rational and mathematical conceptualizations of infinity and the multidimensional simultaneity of the universal principle of identity.

In other words, you will stop pretending that your perspective is an uncontestable absolute of absolute certainty, nitwit. You will pull your ass out of your cramped paradigm and come to terms with mine or shut up. You will not declare the actually existent and objectively demonstrable paradigm of realty to be irrational, illogical or incomprehensible sans justification without having this post follow you every time you open yap on this thread.

We live in a material reality that is infinity divisible and mathematically quantify it using an infinite set of numeric values. We readily apprehend, both rationally and mathematically, the construct of infinity and do all kinds of calculi in infinity with no sweat. Yet you would imagine that God, the Creator of it all, would be something less than infinitely great, something less than the infinities of His creation in terms of attribution?

And since you don't think you have any responsibility to grasp the premise and particulars of my posts before you pop off, when I see you making factually or logically unsound pronouncements on this thread you will see this post again until such time you retract your baloney. For example, you opined that mathematics couldn’t be used to demonstrate anything about divine attribution at all after reading my post on that very same topic. Perhaps you think I don‘t know what I‘m talking about regarding the distinctions between logical proofs and scientific affirmations. In the meantime, mathematicians have been asserting the opposite of what you averred to be a ridiculous for centuries.

The objectively apprehensible facts of the matter belong to us all, not just you. We all have the right to know if what you're implying holds up in the light of what the laws of organic thought evince about the construct of infinity.

Neither your demagogic tactics nor your dogmatic fanaticism is going to fly against the objective facts around here. You're not going rob others from the opportunity of recognizing the self-evident I AM of human cognition and what necessarily follows while I'm around.

Check?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

Didn't pick up on that from the construct of God itself that's in your mind, eh? You know, the idea of a Creator that's in your mind that you cannot logically rule out or even logically say doesn't exist. You know, the idea that makes you an agnostic. You know the idea of a Creator, which of course, necessarily assigns the value of creation to the cosmological order.,

My question for you: why do you keep lying to yourself and others?

 

[BreezeWood]

The Christ side of God is Restorative Justice
which seeks peaceful means through
Forgiveness and Spiritual healing.

So my views of God are about
Healingn and inclusion which is the opposite of Genocide and antichrist.

????

sorry, for me the above makes no sense and is contradictory to past history, if it is your justification then that is for you to decide though that is my point, Christianity is the obstacle ... best of luck.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

.

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.

.

BreezeWood, I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit. I have never said that, ever! I am saying that the only thing I can OBJECTIVELY or SCIENTIFICALLY assert is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life in terms of physical nature, is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired. The rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, including the three laws of organic thought and the axioms thereof are bioneurologically hardwired. That's tautological true.

That is not controversial.

Stop quibbling, going in circles, talking banalities. Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.

I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit - is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life - is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.

are you suggesting there are any forms of life created by the Almighty that are not synonymous with a Spirit - and your Spirit is "hardwired" ?


is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life

that is what you conclude from your "7 Things" -

Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.

sorry, I'm just curious how Flora without a neurological tract becomes hardwired if it is not their Spirit you are talking about .... ( that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying ) and no you are not Hitler, you just remind me of that type of persuasion.

.

I'll ask the questions from here on out.

On the face of them, 'til we get to the rational and mathematical details of #4, is your notion affirmed by or precluded from The Seven Things?i

No.

How could it be? The Seven Things only pertain to what we can objectively assert. Do you know what you're dog is asserting, if anything, about the Seven Things?

The Seven Things only pertain to what we can objectively assert - Do you know what you're dog is asserting, if anything, about the Seven Things?

1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
4. The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
5. However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.

I lost the other two .... my friend above would most likely leave out what is in red, the indecisiveness however that is not to assert in any manner a substitute for the knowledge within for the subject of the Creator and their goals as the same that exists in all that is living - (except perhaps humanity).

really, MDR you do yourself a disservice by not seeing in all of life something you believe is meant only for yourself or humanity.

do your Seven Things accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? no, that is the point.

.

 

[Boss]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.

That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.

If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.

Yes, I already said there are no absolutes, we cannot KNOW truth, and everything in physical science is a hypothesis. That's why my comment included "at least as much as anything can actually be proven." We can't even "prove" reality exists, it might simply be an illusion... In fact, Einstein also said THAT!

For someone who says there are no absolutes you sure do believe in a lot of absolutes.

Everything I present is in the context that I could be wrong, you could be wrong, I could be right, you could be right, or we both could we wrong or right at the same time, or at any given time. Nothing is ever absolute.

 

[G.T.]

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.

Didn't pick up on that from the construct of God itself that's in your mind, eh? You know, the idea of a Creator that's in your mind that you cannot logically rule out or even logically say doesn't exist. You know, the idea that makes you an agnostic. You know the idea of a Creator, which of course, necessarily assigns the value of creation to the cosmological order.,

My question for you: why do you keep lying to yourself and others?

Insisting that god is in my mind is not absolute proof that existence was created.

Want to try again?

 

[Taz]

The Spiritual Healing process that requires Faith in Forgiveness
(ie agreeing to pray for forgiveness first, and then receiving healing afterwards)
can be demonstrated as effective, natural, valid and consistent with science and medicine.

So you can prove both that this process is real and works following the same pattern or process
for all people though the results vary because people's ill conditions vary in complexity and length to recover and heal,
AND you can prove it is valid what Christians teach
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick.

So this can be demonstrated using medical science.

Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...