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

[G.T.]

No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.

What's your point?

You said this:

"They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."

The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.

Read more carefully and think about what you read. Don't read what you think.

I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. It's simply saying that a lot of the confusion is due to a poor understanding of God's characteristics as well as loose definitions.

What is the difference between paradox and contradiction?

Here's the thing.

That NEWLY bolded part in your new post here?

Is an assertion that God even exists.

If he doesn't, it is FALSE and at the very least - un provable.

The problem was, that you used the term "proves," - in which case, that to which you were referring was an assertion and NOT a proof.

 

[MaxGrit]

Summary:

God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.

Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.

You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!

Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.

BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.

Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.

You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.

 

[G.T.]

Summary:

God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.

Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.

You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!

Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.

BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.

Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.

You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.

Omnipotent's english definition is having unlimited power.

Either logic is incomplete, or omnipotence doesn't exist. There is NO PROOF that either is correct.

 

[MaxGrit]

No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.

What's your point?

You said this:

"They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."

The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.

Read more carefully and think about what you read. Don't read what you think.

I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. It's simply saying that a lot of the confusion is due to a poor understanding of God's characteristics as well as loose definitions.

What is the difference between paradox and contradiction?

Here's the thing.

That NEWLY bolded part in your new post here?

Is an assertion that God even exists.

If he doesn't, it is FALSE and at the very least - un provable.

The problem was, that you used the term "proves," - in which case, that to which you were referring was an assertion and NOT a proof.

We're discussing how omnipotence works. Also you need to look up the answer to my question.

 

[G.T.]

No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.

What's your point?

You said this:

"They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."

The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.

Read more carefully and think about what you read. Don't read what you think.

I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. It's simply saying that a lot of the confusion is due to a poor understanding of God's characteristics as well as loose definitions.

What is the difference between paradox and contradiction?

Here's the thing.

That NEWLY bolded part in your new post here?

Is an assertion that God even exists.

If he doesn't, it is FALSE and at the very least - un provable.

The problem was, that you used the term "proves," - in which case, that to which you were referring was an assertion and NOT a proof.

We're discussing how omnipotence works. Also you need to look up the answer to my question.

Your question is irrelevant because we haven't even established that the paradox of omnipotence even EXISTS, let alone calling it PROOF that man's knowledge of God is incomplete.

You used the term proof very very loosely, that is the initial breaking point of your commentary on the paradox.

It itself (the paradox) hasn't even been proven to exist; therefore, cannot be used as a foundation of PROOF of ANYthing.

 

[MaxGrit]

Summary:

God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.

Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.

You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!

Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.

BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.

Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.

You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.

Omnipotent's english definition is having unlimited power.

Either logic is incomplete, or omnipotence doesn't exist. There is NO PROOF that either is correct.

Logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. Here's the answer: your premise is false because it uses a wrong definition of omnipotent.

 

[MaxGrit]

Please look up the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

 

[G.T.]

Summary:

God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.

Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.

You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!

Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.

BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.

Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.

You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.

Omnipotent's english definition is having unlimited power.

Either logic is incomplete, or omnipotence doesn't exist. There is NO PROOF that either is correct.

Logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. Here's the answer: your premise is false because it uses a wrong definition of omnipotent.

It's not a fallacy, it's a difference of opinion on what a term is defined as.

Fortunately for me, that you don't get to decide the definitions of any words means that my comments were not fallacious. Thnxx.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.

If "God" is not defined as a cognitive entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for that but most definitely not proof of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.

If God is defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being knows that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.

The absolute of omniscience is also a fun topic to discuss since that implies all knowledge of the past, present and future. So if the future were to change then an omniscient being would already be aware of that change and of what the future would have been like had it not changed and what the future is now like because of that change. Therefore an omniscient being would know all possible futures no matter how infinitesimal each of those changes might be. So if a bacterium were to die instead of living that would be known. Take a step further to the point of whether or not a particular atom joins to become a molecule. That is no longer knowledge but merely an accumulation of data. Knowledge implies that there is value to the data itself. The Universe contains all of the data about every atom, molecule and bacteria but does that equate to Knowledge?

Is the Universe omniscient or merely the repository of all data? The latter is the logical choice but it then begs the question of what being would be capable

Summary:

God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.

Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.

You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!

Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.

BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.

Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.

You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.

omnipotent - definition of omnipotent by The Free Dictionary

om·nip·o·tent

(

m-n

p

-t

nt)
adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.

Onus is on you to prove that your definition overrides the dictionary definition.

 

[PratchettFan]

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.

If "God" is not defined as a cognitive entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for that but most definitely not proof of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.

If God is defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being knows that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.

You make excellent points. I really can't argue with the essence of it. People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.

With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge. For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere. There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now. I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there. However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent. From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent. Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient. So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.

I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought. I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.

I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.

The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.

It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."

This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.


edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis

But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it. The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain. This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix. My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute. It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.

 

[G.T.]

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.

If "God" is not defined as a cognitive entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for that but most definitely not proof of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.

If God is defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being knows that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.

You make excellent points. I really can't argue with the essence of it. People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.

With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge. For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere. There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now. I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there. However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent. From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent. Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient. So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.

I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought. I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.

I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.

The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.

It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."

This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.


edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis

But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it. The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain. This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix. My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute. It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.

I said the same things you just, said in my post that you quoted^^

 

[NYcarbineer]

My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours. Some aspects of morality might achieve the appearance of being objective and absolute because they are overwhelmingly supported by broad subjective consensus,

but they remain subjective conclusions nonetheless.

The fact that you cannot name a genuinely absolute moral standard is ample evidence of that.

If all is subjective than nothing is objective, and there could be no such thing as objective evidence. Not only would the delineation of morality be impossible, but the enterprises of communication, mathematics, geometry and science would be impossible. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally absolute. The laws of logic are irrefutable: A = A (identity), A = not-A (contradiction), A or ~A (the excluded middle).

I already established what the absolute standard for morality is: the ramifications of the universally absolute laws of logic grounded in the being of God. It's you will not and cannot justify your moral mumbo-jumbo. Check?

Normative relativism/universal subjectivism: there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely false. Normative relativism/universal subjectivism is rank irrationalism. If all is relative, which it is clearly an inherently self-negating and contradictory assertion, than nothing can be credibly asserted to be true, including 1 + 1 = 2.

And that ends my dialogue with you cognitive psychopaths of relativism who seem to be operating under the impression that prominent atheists in the hard sciences are operational relativists. They are not and have nothing but contempt for you relativist ninnies.

Foxfyre, scripture draws a distinction between those to whom the intimate things of God are foolishness as these things go the a higher order of revelatory knowledge of salvation and fellowship in Christ, not to the universally apparent imperatives of human consciousness. The persons who can no longer make out the latter are those who have been turned over to a reprobate mind, a form of psychopathy, due to their prolonged, habitual denial of these fundamental imperatives. Only a relatively small number of the atheists on this forum are not reprobate minds. .

I asked you, repeatedly, for a moral absolute. An example. One. You failed to provide one. And interestingly, you managed to produce about 5000 words of type failing to provide one.

Now, if I missed it, please reproduce it. In one short sentence or phrase. Please. It was afterall your claim, and a key element in the argument you were making...

 

[G.T.]

Please look up the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

It's irrelevant.

Whether you're calling it the omnipotence paradox or the omnipotence contradiction - neither serves as PROOF that the paradox OR the contradiction even EXISTS, therefore cannot serve as PROOF that man is incomplete in his knowledge of God OR that God even exists.

Your comment was logically meaningless, in summary.

 

[MaxGrit]

Actually it makes a huge difference what the definitions of words are.

Your definition of omnipotent is self-contradictory.

Therefore all arguments that uses that definition of omnipotent are automatically fallacious.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.

If "God" is not defined as a cognitive entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for that but most definitely not proof of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.

If God is defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being knows that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.

You make excellent points. I really can't argue with the essence of it. People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.

With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge. For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere. There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now. I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there. However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent. From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent. Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient. So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.

I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought. I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.

I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.

The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.

It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."

This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.


edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis

But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it. The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain. This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix. My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute. It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.

Absolutely ghey! loll

 

[MaxGrit]

Please look up the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

It's irrelevant.

Whether you're calling it the omnipotence paradox or the omnipotence contradiction - neither serves as PROOF that the paradox OR the contradiction even EXISTS, therefore cannot serve as PROOF that man is incomplete in his knowledge of God OR that God even exists.

Your comment was logically meaningless, in summary.

Your argument is irrelevant due to lack of logic.

 

[G.T.]

Actually it makes a huge difference what the definitions of words are.

Your definition of omnipotent is self-contradictory.

Therefore all arguments that uses that definition of omnipotent are automatically fallacious.

No, they aren't - because said omnipotence doesn't necessarily exist to create said contradiction.

In order for omnipotence to be an actual paradox OR contradiction, it must first exist in reality.

That it does not - means logic as we know it is still sound, as far as OUR knowledge is concerned.

 

[G.T.]

Please look up the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

It's irrelevant.

Whether you're calling it the omnipotence paradox or the omnipotence contradiction - neither serves as PROOF that the paradox OR the contradiction even EXISTS, therefore cannot serve as PROOF that man is incomplete in his knowledge of God OR that God even exists.

Your comment was logically meaningless, in summary.

Your argument is irrelevant due to lack of logic.

That's a substance-less cop-out.

My argument is sound, yours was the one on shaky ground in that you used the term proof where it couldn't, logically, belong. And there's a record of that.

 

[PratchettFan]

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.

If "God" is not defined as a cognitive entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for that but most definitely not proof of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.

If God is defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being knows that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.

You make excellent points. I really can't argue with the essence of it. People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.

With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge. For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere. There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now. I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there. However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent. From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent. Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient. So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.

I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought. I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.

I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.

The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.

It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."

This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.


edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis

But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it. The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain. This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix. My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute. It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.

I said the same things you just, said in my post that you quoted^^

I'm not really sure what you were saying. If we follow Descartes then how do you know anything beyond yourself exists? You can't. You can only know that you exist and you may be hallucinating everything. Saying this does not apply to the mug really means nothing since all you have to connect with the outside world is your brain connected to your senses. If the mug exists only in your mind, then the mug is your mind.

This really is the problem with Descartes. He takes us to a place where we are paralyzed by uncertainty. It does, however, point out the need for compromise. At some point you have to be willing to say "that is enough information to say we know it."

 

[MaxGrit]

Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.