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

[Boss]

An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.

Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them!

From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.

 

[Justin Davis]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

When Hollie posts I have to wipe the vomit off my screen first, then I get the picture.

It's always easy to tell when the angry fundies are at a loss to defend their magical gawds and spirit realms: they slam the board with their irrelevant piffle.

If that's true then that's true about you in spades, for piffle is your middle name. Hollie Piffle Vomit.

Such is the level of discourse coming from fundie christian Madrassahs and from those who live and work in the sewers.

Got it the first time, before all the hundreds of other times you wrote what you mostly always write, and what you wrote again.

Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.

Amen. May the force be with you.

 

[Hollie]

An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.

Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them!

From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.

A simple explanation for some imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds is really pretty simple but also useless as an explanation for anything.

 

[Justin Davis]

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!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."

Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.

You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
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)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
(EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.

__________________________

I'm sorry. You must have missed this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

The term God first and foremostly means Creator! It is stupid to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?

Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!



. . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the reductio ad absurdum of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​

Then I wrote just under that: (Not you, GT, you’re an agnostic for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)


LOL!


So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right? Let me know when you make up your mind.

GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.

No, its that you bozos have reading comprehension issues.

Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.

Amen. May the force be with you.

But we still see right through you, atheist agnostic, agnostic atheist.

 

[G.T.]

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!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."

Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.

You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
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)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
(EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.

__________________________

I'm sorry. You must have missed this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

The term God first and foremostly means Creator! It is stupid to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?

Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!



. . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the reductio ad absurdum of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​

Then I wrote just under that: (Not you, GT, you’re an agnostic for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)


LOL!


So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right? Let me know when you make up your mind.

GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.

No, its that you bozos have reading comprehension issues.

Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.

Amen. May the force be with you.

But we still see right through you, atheist agnostic, agnostic atheist.

You're gnat status dude.

Go fix a p trap.

 

[Boss]

An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.

Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them!

From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.

A simple explanation for some imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds is really pretty simple but also useless as an explanation for anything.

I have no idea about "magical spiritual realms inhabited by gawds" and have never argued such a thing existed.

 

[Hollie]

An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.

Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them!

From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.

A simple explanation for some imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds is really pretty simple but also useless as an explanation for anything.

I have no idea about "magical spiritual realms inhabited by gawds" and have never argued such a thing existed.

That's exactly what you're proposing with your invention of spirit realms.

It’s not a matter of your liking or disliking a term. It’s a matter of holding to a consistent standard. Neither in a scientific or a rational sense is there any reason to acknowledge the existence of spirit realms or your partisan gawds in preference to other conceptions of gawds. Were left with claims of the supernatural - for which there is no evidence – as qualifying for consideration in the rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us the rational, supportable data that supports your spirit realms.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

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.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.

Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.

To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.

Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed. That's one of the two ultimate options of origin: materiality or transcendent immateriality. And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand. What's the grounds for that? Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it! That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!

But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away:

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

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

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

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​

While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache. I think I grasp what you are saying. [1] My question (for now) is on #4. Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God. Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...

Why should it give you a headache? It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms. #4 doesn't presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being. Bottom line: the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top. But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated. See how that works? Four holds and seven holds.

Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"? Also using the wording "a being" is singular. The implication is that there is only 1.

I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book. It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum. While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument. Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.

Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.

Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.

Now you've gone all wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the herd-mentality.

In answer to your question. . . .

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I wrote gods you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you? Yes, of course, you'd have to. If not, why not? While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.

You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.

As I wrote elsewhere:

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 why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

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.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

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

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

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.

 

[Hollie]

Still cock blocking, I see. Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

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.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

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

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

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.

I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.

The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.

 

[G.T.]

They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.

I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.

I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.

I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.

I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.

Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.

That's why its an argument and not a conversation.

You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the lowlife tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'

Things go south.

Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."

Things go south.

If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.

Things go south.

Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.

 

[Justin Davis]

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!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."

Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.

You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
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)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
(EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.

__________________________

I'm sorry. You must have missed this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

The term God first and foremostly means Creator! It is stupid to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?

Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!



. . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the reductio ad absurdum of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​

Then I wrote just under that: (Not you, GT, you’re an agnostic for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)


LOL!


So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right? Let me know when you make up your mind.

GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.

No, its that you bozos have reading comprehension issues.

Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.

Amen. May the force be with you.

But we still see right through you, atheist agnostic, agnostic atheist.

You're gnat status dude.

Go fix a p trap.

From where I'm standing I see a lot of flies getting swatted away, but I morph. One of the things I dig about all this is the mathematics of it, the part you like to keep from the logic that tells you that what you say is wrong. It's funny how you like that part but not the God thing, agnostic atheist. But for something really cool, check this out.

In philosophy, infinity can be attributed to infinite dimensions, as for instance in Kant's first antinomy. In both theology and philosophy, infinity is explored in articles such as the Ultimate, the Absolute, God, and Zeno's paradoxes. In Greek philosophy, for example in Anaximander, 'the Boundless' is the origin of all that is. He took the beginning or first principle to be an endless, unlimited primordial mass (ἄπειρον, apeiron). In Judeo-Christian theology, for example in the work of theologians such as Duns Scotus, the infinite nature of God invokes a sense of being without constraint, rather than a sense of being unlimited in quantity. In ethics infinity plays an important role designating that which cannot be defined or reduced to knowledge or power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_(philosophy)

Then we look at this.

https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Blanc.html

The question I have for the atheist agnostic is why he always runs from the objective facts of logic without admitting them if he's so sure that he's smarter than all the smartest people in history.

 

[Boss]

An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.

Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them!

From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.

A simple explanation for some imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds is really pretty simple but also useless as an explanation for anything.

I have no idea about "magical spiritual realms inhabited by gawds" and have never argued such a thing existed.

That's exactly what you're proposing with your invention of spirit realms.

It’s not a matter of your liking or disliking a term. It’s a matter of holding to a consistent standard. Neither in a scientific or a rational sense is there any reason to acknowledge the existence of spirit realms or your partisan gawds in preference to other conceptions of gawds. Were left with claims of the supernatural - for which there is no evidence – as qualifying for consideration in the rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us the rational, supportable data that supports your spirit realms.

Again, don't know what you mean by "partisan gawds" and I've never argued for one. Nor have I argued for "spirit realms" or "supernaturalism." These are all things you attribute to me but I've never argued.

I actually do understand the problem with you understanding spiritual nature and I've tried to explain it to others. It's fundamentally rooted in your understanding of what "exists" in your own objective reality. Spiritual nature is no more "supernatural" than physical nature, you just refuse to acknowledge it exists as part of nature. But refusing to acknowledge something doesn't make it go away and not exist.

I bet you that at some point in your pathetic and miserable life, you have heard a song or watched a movie which moved you to tears. If you have experienced that, congratulations... you've had a "spiritual" experience. Now, there are indeed some physical signs and evidence to confirm what happened to you, but the essence of what you experienced was spiritual in nature. I'm sure you've probably seen a black woman sing.... maybe the National Anthem or something... toward the end, she starts really "getting into it" as she belts out the lines, holding a hand in the air with eyes closed... well, you are witnessing someone having a "spiritual" experience. Unless you live under a rock and are completely disconnected from the rest of society, you've probably seen many spiritual experiences or had them yourself and didn't know it.

I just want you to realize, it does not matter to me if you acknowledge spiritual nature or not. I don't care what happens to you in life, it doesn't affect me in the least. If you got hit by a bus today, it wouldn't phase me a bit. I do, however, think it is SAD whenever someone rejects spiritual nature because I've found it to be very fulfilling in life. It has always been the thing which filled the void in me and made me feel complete as a person. For many years I didn't have that and I suffered more than I knew. I pray that you will one day find it.

 

[Justin Davis]

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

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.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

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

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

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.

I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.

The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.

I find is funny that you still won't admit that you know these things are true and pretend not to understand why the other two were added, because the first five had to be understood first before adding the other two.

 

[G.T.]

Justin, your facts of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.

In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.





Or, keep on with the tired ad hom crutch as we know you will.

 

[sealybobo]

Still cock blocking, I see. Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

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.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

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

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

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.

Yea, our ape ancestors came up with those arguments. Number two is wrong.

The Teleological argument [2], or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation > Abiogenesis > Evolution

Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organisation, Evolution [2], The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado [2] (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2, Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Number 15

Why there is no god

 

[sealybobo]

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

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

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

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.

I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.

The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.

I find is funny that you still won't admit that you know these things are true and pretend not to understand why the other two were added, because the first five had to be understood first before adding the other two.

Number two is wrong. If it were Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, you'd be out before you even made $1000.

Why there is no god

Number 15 on all the reasons there is no god.

 

[Broncho4]

To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.

Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed. That's one of the two ultimate options of origin: materiality or transcendent immateriality. And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand. What's the grounds for that? Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it! That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!

But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away:

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

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

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

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​

While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache. I think I grasp what you are saying. [1] My question (for now) is on #4. Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God. Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...

Why should it give you a headache? It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms. #4 doesn't presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being. Bottom line: the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top. But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated. See how that works? Four holds and seven holds.

Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"? Also using the wording "a being" is singular. The implication is that there is only 1.

I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book. It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum. While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument. Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.

Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.

Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.

Now you've gone all wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the herd-mentality.

In answer to your question. . . .

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I wrote gods you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you? Yes, of course, you'd have to. If not, why not? While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.

You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.

As I wrote elsewhere:

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 why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.

I understood exactly what you were saying. I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God (depending on your definition of God). I think it is illogical and irresponsible to rule out the existence of something/someone who predates the universe. I require no admiration, agreement or sympathy for my beliefs.

Maybe you are unaware of how your thoughts read to a casual observer. "Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:" This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning. It can also be stated that to participate in a discussion forum with rhetoric fit for a science forum will also lend itself to average people misunderstanding your intentions.

 

[sealybobo]

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.

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.

What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away. Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real? Well they are still Christians, aren't they? And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started. Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800. We came from a very superstitious people. Not very bright.

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen. But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve. In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.

It's just what degree of crazy are they. If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal. It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.

We all understand that's what you want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP. And the only reason you want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism. Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right? Yeah, that's right. So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place. Got begging the question? In other words: "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist." LOL!

This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us. We hate not knowing everything. But the fact is, we don't. And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.

Anyways, it is all amazing. And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this. Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it? You schmuck. We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people. I can't believe you are still one of them. Time to evolve dummies.

And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

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

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

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.

I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.

The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.

And sometimes their lists get smaller. Remember when lightening and famine were because the gods were angry? Today gods don't do anything to us anymore. We can't point to one thing and say, "that was god". Yet they still believe this god character exists.