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

[M.D. Rawlings]

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the a priori, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.

The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.

Very interesting.

"Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb" - justin davis


(i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)

Ergo my suspicions posts earlier--just too many identical misspellings, syntax, and style of posting plus excessive effusive approval and congratulatory posts of each other to likely be purely coincidental. And too many contradictions within it all to be purely logical and/or personal conviction. Which led me to believe we are all having our legs pulled.

And while I can appreciate a clever practical joke with the best of them, there is a limit to how much I am willing to be played for a fool.

Same misspellings, syntax, style? What are you babbling about now?

Justin is trying to learn how to write.

What misspellings of mine are talking about?

But more importantly, what are these supposed contradictions you keep alluding to without ever telling any us what they are? Name them. Put them into evidence. Prove them.

No wonder you put no stock in the proofs of organic logic. Apparently, logic and argumentation for you are bald declarations without substance.

Here's what I find fascinating: a theist who claims to be a Christian, but beneath her declarations of theism and her poorly supported arguments for it, we have the same unbiblical, befuddled, subjective mush regarding the nature of logic and mathematics and the like as that spouted by the atheists on this thread.

Jesus Christ is the universal Logos for whom and by whom all things consist.

That is what Justin, a few others and I have written about. You don't seem to see Him anywhere in any kind of concrete or intimate way but in some ill-defined religious experience. He's everywhere, speaking to us all the time in His word and in His creation. Everything that exists declares the glory and the truth of God.

What don't you understand about that?

" . . . God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1: 18 - 20).

To hear you tell it, we can't know or demonstrate anything of real interest about His attributes and eternal power from the things that are manifest in us or from the things that are clearly perceived and understood by us all!

Paul's just being cute? Doesn’t really mean any of this is true or real?

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together " (Col. 1:15 - 17).

What are these contradictions?

Start with this, and explain yourself, Lady, both logically and biblically:

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 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 about 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.​

 

[BreezeWood]

Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?

Well, I'm not trying to be brutal. LOL! But no one escapes "The Seven Things."

Which version?

Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.

Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.

Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.

A bit uncouth, the two of you.

There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.

The idea of God is hardwired! I didn't change anything! And you just affirmed that fact.

"Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True."

Yeah. That is true, isn't it?

"Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."

Changed it?

These statements are true and are one and the same thing!

The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle: comprehensively, the principle of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired. Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean tabula rasa has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.

Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being cannot logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!

Oh wait! My bad. You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter. Oh, well, moving on. . . .

Now, this axiom of human cognition, this logical proof, does not constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that God exists nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.

The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought is an axiom of the same nature as that of 2 + 2 = 4!

But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition! You keep arguing that absolute a priori intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.

Oh, wait! My bad.

Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic a priories of logic and mathematics sans the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading. Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!

And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the fact and the nature of this cognition.

Oh, wait! My bad again.

You did just acknowledge it for what it is! The idea of God is in our brains! That cognition is hardwired, just like the other a priories concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent a priories, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.

Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.

Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago,

- but MDR humanities existence at best is only a fraction of time since life on Earth began and was not an original form from nothing - where / when did the Hardwire get programed ?

.

 

[G.T.]

MD and his #1 boy-crush fan boy
Both think common sense is one word.

Freudian slip?

Sock account is the likely case. Justin fawns over md's word salad in a bit of an over the top fashion for someone hoisting logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretending they're an authority. justin likely IS MD

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

FoxFyre:

This post of my from earlier directly refutes what you claim to be to be absolutely true, which would necessarily make my post “irrational", right?


So tells us why the following is wrong, contradictory or irrational:

The classical proofs are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

[Or you could just read the Bible about the universal Logos and believe what it says about Him.]

"The Seven Things," which they [the atheists] all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, except the Transcendental Argument (#6), which is an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other a priori knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of a priori knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the I AM and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither these intellectual proofs nor these evidences, but the ultimate ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the knower's belief in the testimony given.

["Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."]

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bio-neurologically hardwired.)​

 

[G.T.]

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?

Well, I'm not trying to be brutal. LOL! But no one escapes "The Seven Things."

Which version?

Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.

Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.

Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.

A bit uncouth, the two of you.

There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.

The idea of God is hardwired! I didn't change anything! And you just affirmed that fact.

"Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True."

Yeah. That is true, isn't it?

"Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."

Changed it?

These statements are true and are one and the same thing!

The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle: comprehensively, the principle of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired. Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean tabula rasa has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.

Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being cannot logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!

Oh wait! My bad. You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter. Oh, well, moving on. . . .

Now, this axiom of human cognition, this logical proof, does not constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that God exists nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.

The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought is an axiom of the same nature as that of 2 + 2 = 4!

But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition! You keep arguing that absolute a priori intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.

Oh, wait! My bad.

Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic a priories of logic and mathematics sans the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading. Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!

And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the fact and the nature of this cognition.

Oh, wait! My bad again.

You did just acknowledge it for what it is! The idea of God is in our brains! That cognition is hardwired, just like the other a priories concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent a priories, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.

Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.

Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago,

- but MDR humanities existence at best is only a fraction of time since life on Earth began and was not an original form from nothing - where / when did the Hardwire get programed ?

.

Rephrase your question. I don't understand it.


What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired. We all recognize the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle, and "The Seven Things” are true, logically, for us all.

Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD and his #1 boy-crush fan boy
Both think common sense is one word.

Freudian slip?

Sock account is the likely case. Justin fawns over md's word salad in a bit of an over the top fashion for someone hoisting logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretending they're an authority. justin likely IS MD

Nonsense. I’ve always spelled it as one word. Thanks for the tip. Apparently, he got that bad habit from me.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently. Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists. There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God. And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.

Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?

From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.

The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence. But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most. And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either. But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.

Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the a priori, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.

The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.

Very interesting.

"Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb" - justin davis


(i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)

He earlier shared that he has a GED. He's trying to learn how to write. What's the big deal? He obviously didn't get suburb from me, but, yes, he could have gotten the bad habit of commonsense from me . . . if he's trusting my spelling. I know why Fox's nose is out of joint. She's talking crap that she can't defend, biblically or logically, which wouldn't be an issue with me had she not made the contents of my posts an issue with her unsupported allegations about contradictory and irrational arguments. Right. Like any of you have refuted the construct of the principle of identity as premised on the laws of thought, "The Seven Things", the MPTAG, the construct of infinity as it pertains to calculus, quantum physics or divinity.

Sillybobo got his seven things turned into God's "Seven Things."

Anytime you're ready, Fox, to actually tell us what's wrong with my arguments, I'll show you how your arguments turn into "The Seven Things" too. No one escapes them. That's an interesting number, isn't it? Seven.

 

[G.T.]

What's left to do but though?

 

[amrchaos]

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
― Rabindranath Tagore

Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.

You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
"Oh, okay honey. "
"Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
"Umm, never mind."

I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.

Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.

The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.

I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.

Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!

If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave. All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.

What is truth in such a situation? What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.

Understand, it is not just logic that fails here. Your intuition will fail as well!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them. Why did they start lying? Maybe your arguments don't hold water? Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth. Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?

Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this. Ok maybe something did. Why does that something have to be a god? And why the lies? Why lie and say god visited your ancestors? I know! It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven. That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking. Grow up. And point number two is wrong:

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument, 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-organization 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’.

Bull! I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread! The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man. Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument. Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?

Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men? Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that? Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.

Because you are one big straw man that's why.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

And you go right on with that pagan tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy. Neither you nor Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma. In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.

How did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you? Not so well, did they? No one escapes "The Seven Things."

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!

 

[amrchaos]

Funny thing about the cave dweller example is that it can apply to any one of us. There is an experience in which both our ability to reason(logic) and our ability to intuit failed us. Yet we all probably forgot.

It is when we were first born. We lack the ability to make reason arguments and the world was so new to us we did not have the adequate facility to intuit what was what.

So how did we develop both our logical and intuitive facilities? Through familiarization from repeated experiences.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the best way to really understand a grand and new experience deeply. It has to be repeated enough times in order to fully grasp the characteristics of it--One time experiences can be logically/intuitively misunderstood by the subject.

I think we finally hit upon a new concept for us atheists--If the logic fails, our intuition could have failed as well.

I have seen cases where intuition fails but logic succeeds. I guess what I need are cases where logic fails but intuition succeeds.

 

[amrchaos]

At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them. Why did they start lying? Maybe your arguments don't hold water? Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth. Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?

Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this. Ok maybe something did. Why does that something have to be a god? And why the lies? Why lie and say god visited your ancestors? I know! It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven. That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking. Grow up. And point number two is wrong:

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument, 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-organization 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’.

Bull! I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread! The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man. Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument. Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?

Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men? Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that? Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.

Because you are one big straw man that's why.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

And you go right on with that pagan tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy. Neither you nor Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma. In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.

How did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you? Not so well, did they? No one escapes "The Seven Things."

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!

OK, I understand that 1 is an assumption we have to make to get anywhere philosophically

But for 2, I have a question. What exactly is this "cosmological order"?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ok so we can establish that MD doesn't know that there's a difference between having an idea and having an idea 'biologically hardwired."


This is the level of intellect we are dealing with? Pass.

If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: latently innate ideas are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be a priori knowledge, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? Yawn The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically a priori. That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.

By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News

 

[G.T.]

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them. Why did they start lying? Maybe your arguments don't hold water? Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth. Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?

Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this. Ok maybe something did. Why does that something have to be a god? And why the lies? Why lie and say god visited your ancestors? I know! It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven. That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking. Grow up. And point number two is wrong:

Complexity/Order proves god exists.
The Teleological argument, 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-organization 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’.

Bull! I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread! The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man. Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument. Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?

Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men? Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that? Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.

Because you are one big straw man that's why.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

And you go right on with that pagan tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy. Neither you nor Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma. In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.

How did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you? Not so well, did they? No one escapes "The Seven Things."

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!

OK, I understand that 1 is an assumption we have to make to get anywhere philosophically

But for 2, I have a question. What exactly is this "cosmological order"?

Well, as you know our universe may not be the only game in town if it's just one of a potentially infinite number of others within the same multiverse, and the quantum vacuum may have always existed. So I used that term so as not to presumptuously preclude any possibilities. I used universe at one point, but that doesn't work really for that reason. If you've got a better term, by all means please share it and we'll use that. Maybe my alternative is no good either, especially if it causes confusion.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Funny thing about the cave dweller example is that it can apply to any one of us. There is an experience in which both our ability to reason(logic) and our ability to intuit failed us. Yet we all probably forgot.

It is when we were first born. We lack the ability to make reason arguments and the world was so new to us we did not have the adequate facility to intuit what was what.

So how did we develop both our logical and intuitive facilities? Through familiarization from repeated experiences.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the best way to really understand a grand and new experience deeply. It has to be repeated enough times in order to fully grasp the characteristics of it--One time experiences can be logically/intuitively misunderstood by the subject.

I think we finally hit upon a new concept for us atheists--If the logic fails, our intuition could have failed as well.

I have seen cases where intuition fails but logic succeeds. I guess what I need are cases where logic fails but intuition succeeds.

I agree with this. I too have seen intuition fail where logic holds. But we're talking about "secondary" kinds of intuitions, yes? The God idea is latently intuited. The substance it represents can't be logically eliminated, and because it proves itself positive in organic logic, we are thrown into the world of paradox when we suspend it in constructive logic. While I don't believe this to be this case, speaking objectively, it's arguably a fluke of nature.

Certainly, the latently innate ideas and those acquired about the external world require time and experience to develop and stick, with most of the former adhering very early. I think its right to say that the ABCs of morality are necessarily premised on the laws of thought, albeit, as tested and affirmed by human interaction.

 

[Justin Davis]

MD and his #1 boy-crush fan boy
Both think common sense is one word.

Freudian slip?

Sock account is the likely case. Justin fawns over md's word salad in a bit of an over the top fashion for someone hoisting logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretending they're an authority. justin likely IS MD

Nonsense. I’ve always spelled it as one word. Thanks for the tip. Apparently, he got that bad habit from me.

I saw someone else spell it that way and then you did and assumed it was right. Why is that such a big deal though?

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

What in the world is this? I just saw this conversation between you two. It's a contrast between brilliant prose and thinking and rank stupidity so obtuse as to be exponential. Look, buddy, the only arrogant and condescending snob here is you. And you are one obtusely stupid snob at that. I’ve been reading logic and theology for months, learning these things from some of the best. Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb. He could be published. I know what you are. You're one of those insecure, reverse snobs, an ignoramus without a lick of commonsense. Ive been reading some others like you on this thread, like QW and Foxfrye. All of you guys write well, but Rawlings writes with commonsense while you dummies write gibberish and pretend that his prose is not what it is, good prose, that's witty, penetrating, precise and to the point. What a bunch of phonies some of you people are.

You understood what he was saying? What a phony. Then why did you say that number 4 was wrong in the first place, and repeat your nonsense and condescendingly lecture him on vocabulary? Are you kidding me? Who do you think you're fooling? What an idiot you are. And who else would he be talking about but kids and persons suffering from some kind of mental disability? Commonsense should have told you that. What a dunce you are and the fact that you would think something petty like that just shows who the real snob is. You. Since the seven things are obviously true, simple commonsense, anybody with commonsense would naturally assume that everybody else would understand them. You're just a snob with no commonsense. Rawlings is too nice to you people.

"I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7."

The problem you had with it was your lack of commonsense. So you know that number 4 and 7 are true now don't you? Yeah you do?


"This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning."

I'm an adult male and a plumber, and I never thought anything stupid like that. I know Boss and some others never thought anything stupid like that. Are you an insecure reverse snob with no commonsense? Yes you are.

You know, another definition of the word "prose" is to: talk tediously. With that in mind, I will agree with your statements.

So we agree. The nonexistent problems in your head and your silly sneers were tedious. I'm glad we got that settled.

 

[amrchaos]

Funny thing about the cave dweller example is that it can apply to any one of us. There is an experience in which both our ability to reason(logic) and our ability to intuit failed us. Yet we all probably forgot.

It is when we were first born. We lack the ability to make reason arguments and the world was so new to us we did not have the adequate facility to intuit what was what.

So how did we develop both our logical and intuitive facilities? Through familiarization from repeated experiences.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the best way to really understand a grand and new experience deeply. It has to be repeated enough times in order to fully grasp the characteristics of it--One time experiences can be logically/intuitively misunderstood by the subject.

I think we finally hit upon a new concept for us atheists--If the logic fails, our intuition could have failed as well.

I have seen cases where intuition fails but logic succeeds. I guess what I need are cases where logic fails but intuition succeeds.

I agree with this. I too have seen intuition fail where logic holds. But we're talking about "secondary" kinds of intuitions, yes? The God idea is latently intuited. The substance it represents can't be logically eliminated, and because it proves itself positive in organic logic, we are thrown into the world of paradox when we suspend it in constructive logic. While I don't believe this to be this case, speaking objectively, it's arguably a fluke of nature.

Certainly, the latently innate ideas and those acquired about the external world require time and experience to develop and stick, with most of the former adhering very early. I think its right to say that the ABCs of morality are necessarily premised on the laws of thought, albeit, as tested and affirmed by human interaction.

Wait wait wait


Let make sure I got this right. You wish to make reference to two types of intuition--Secondary and Latent intuition?

Latent intuition is akin to knowing how to breathe air(although never having actual lessons in doing so )--it is a knowledge that we are born with.
While Secondary intuition is akin to sensing danger? The conscious/subconscious relationships we make through daily experience.


And you are claiming that the God idea is latent? Why would you assume that? Also, If that was true, why do we have any religion?

I could be wrong here, but would it not make sense to think it has to be secondary and begins to form through experiences with our parents/guardians.

Think about it. The latent intuition aspects tends to form the basis of most our basic bodily functions to surviving. The God idea does not appear to have any application to this.