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

[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 ?

.

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?

(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.)

What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired.

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists - the Bible,tells us that God exists ...

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

well, for one - you specify (currently) science can not verify whether or not God exists but in your "wired" mind you believe an unverified bible "tells us God exists" - via the very logic ... as a proof not afforded #5 science that no such proof exists.


MDR: the laws of human thought ...

maybe it should be you in a room with a hungry Lion and not Bossy, or better why not try your logic on the Ebola virus ... since by your wired mind you rule over them, no problem as surly God "wired" them the same in response to your humanly presence.

.

 

[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.

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?

You had it right the first time, so don't assume my spelling on everything is gospel, especially because I mostly write on the board fast.

The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but they're nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds. You might be right. I'm not sure, frankly. That's not the sort of thing that's worth getting into. At the personal level, God deals with people differently. That's the same point Fox is making too, but the way she wants to make it, for all her pretense of civility, is to take drive by shots at those things I'm arguing to be universally absolute by implying that her notions are universally absolute, which makes no sense at all. If what I'm arguing is wrong, then where's her argument showing that? The problems would necessarily have to be of an objectively apparent nature. It's all hooey, of course, because what she's implying to be of that nature is just her indemonstrably subjective experiences or opinions, and it's interesting to see who blindly goes along with her guff, the other denizens of subjective superstition.

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture. If her actual complaint goes to what she thinks is contradictory at that level, well let's see it. If she's right in that regard, she can improve me. I've got no problem with that.

But you went after the guy who questioned #4, which was in fact a mountain over no-hills at all, and that riled her again: sock puppet and mock accounts and all that. I wished you'd left that alone, but, water under the bridge.

My advice: ignore the noise and move on. armchaos is cool to talk to because he doesn't take this stuff personally. It is what it is. We don't have to agree on everything. Fox's assessment of the situation is delusional and hostile. The dude who went all weird over nothing was rude for no reason and wrong about everything to boot. LOL!

 

[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.

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.

I'm sorry. Good point! I'm thinking intuitions about empirical things: things that seem/feel right at first blush, but turn out to be instinctual reactions that are not well-reasoned. I've had my share of those. Doh! I thought that was the kind of thing you meant.

Regarding the idea of God, I hold it to be latently innate in the sense that it's a priori knowledge due to the fact of "the God axiom," which is of the same nature as 2 + 2 = 4, which comes faster, and the Bible talks about the age of accountability. But that intuition doesn't come until after some intellectual development and experience. So, yes, I agree with what you're saying.

It seems to me that the conscious apprehension of the God idea requires some rational and empirical experience before it dawns on us in a personally significant way. The earliest I can remember experiencing the idea up close in my own right was around the age of five or so when I tried to imagine nothingness, and it seemed to me that I bumped into this Guy the adults had talked about it. It was like an epiphany, not just a word or some Guy out there, and I talked to Him. Years later life happened and I went atheist for a while.

Also, in the above you mean the development of survival skills to preserve life, right? Just making sure.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

,

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?

(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.)

What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired.

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists - the Bible,tells us that God exists ...

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

well, for one - you specify (currently) science can not verify whether or not God exists but in your "wired" mind you believe an unverified bible "tells us God exists" - via the very logic ... as a proof not afforded #5 science that no such proof exists.


MDR: the laws of human thought ...

maybe it should be you in a room with a hungry Lion and not Bossy, or better why not try your logic on the Ebola virus ... since by your wired mind you rule over them, no problem as surly God "wired" them the same in response to your humanly presence.

.

No. I'm not thinking those weird things.

Perhaps if you were to just let "The Seven Things" be what they are and stop imaging things or projecting things that aren't there, you wouldn't waste so much energy on illusions and rudeness. Now I'm trying to be nice.

Empty your mind, back out of your paradigm, which appears to be some form of pantheism. Stick with the immediate facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

These things are not hard to see, but there can be a struggle for those not practiced in the art of objectivity.

There's no specific religious creed or religious dogma in them at all. I'm not in them at all, not me personally or anything I personally believe. So stop confusing yourself with attacks on me, Christianity or the Bible. None of that’s there, none of that matters. You can't see those kinds of things in them anyway, not about any creed at all. Just let yourself see the idea of God in these things first as it comes at you, then let Him sort all the rest out with you should you dare go that far, i.e., beyond the mere intellectual apprehensions.

Leave me out of it. I'm nobody.

 

[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?

You had it right the first time, so don't assume my spelling on everything is gospel, especially because I mostly write on the board fast.

The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but they're nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds. You might be right. I'm not sure, frankly. That's not the sort of thing that's worth getting into. At the personal level, God deals with people differently. That's the same point Fox is making too, but the way she wants to make it, for all her pretense of civility, is to take drive by shots at those things I'm arguing to be universally absolute by implying that her notions are universally absolute, which makes no sense at all. If what I'm arguing is wrong, then where's her argument showing that? The problems would necessarily have to be of an objectively apparent nature. It's all hooey, of course, because what she's implying to be of that nature is just her indemonstrably subjective experiences or opinions, and it's interesting to see who blindly goes along with her guff, the other denizens of subjective superstition.

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture. If her actual complaint goes to what she thinks is contradictory at that level, well let's see it. If she's right in that regard, she can improve me. I've got no problem with that.

But you went after the guy who questioned #4, which was in fact a mountain over no-hills at all, and that riled her again: sock puppet and mock accounts and all that. I wished you'd left that alone, but, water under the bridge.

My advice: ignore the noise and move on. armchaos is cool to talk to because he doesn't take this stuff personally. It is what it is. We don't have to agree on everything. Fox's assessment of the situation is delusional and hostile. The dude who went all weird over nothing was rude for no reason and wrong about everything to boot. LOL!

I'm just not sure that all of the detailed stuff about number 4 is objective, though most of it is to me.

 

[BreezeWood]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

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?

(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.)

What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired.

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists - the Bible,tells us that God exists ...

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

well, for one - you specify (currently) science can not verify whether or not God exists but in your "wired" mind you believe an unverified bible "tells us God exists" - via the very logic ... as a proof not afforded #5 science that no such proof exists.


MDR: the laws of human thought ...

maybe it should be you in a room with a hungry Lion and not Bossy, or better why not try your logic on the Ebola virus ... since by your wired mind you rule over them, no problem as surly God "wired" them the same in response to your humanly presence.

.

No. I'm not thinking those weird things.

Perhaps if you were to just let "The Seven Things" be what they are and stop imaging things or projecting things that aren't there, you wouldn't waste so much energy on illusions and rudeness. Now I'm trying to be nice.

Empty your mind, back out of your paradigm, which appears to be some form of pantheism. Stick with the immediate facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

These things are not hard to see, but there can be struggle for those no practiced in the art of being objective.

There's no specific religious creed or religious dogma in them at all. I'm not in them at all, not me personally or anything I personally believe. So stop confusing yourself with attacks on me, Christianity or the Bible. None of that’s there, none of that matters.

no, the logic you believe is simply construed for a self defined construct you call humanity, not Spirituality and specifically the Spirituality of the Everlasting derived from all life forms "Created" including the hungry Lion applying its appetite despite your words of condemnation.


the Spiritual and true syllogism for proof of the Almighty is found for the very reason of existence in the Garden of Creation - not in a persons "hardwire" brain ....

.

 

[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.

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?

You had it right the first time, so don't assume my spelling on everything is gospel, especially because I mostly write on the board fast.

The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but they're nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds. You might be right. I'm not sure, frankly. That's not the sort of thing that's worth getting into. At the personal level, God deals with people differently. That's the same point Fox is making too, but the way she wants to make it, for all her pretense of civility, is to take drive by shots at those things I'm arguing to be universally absolute by implying that her notions are universally absolute, which makes no sense at all. If what I'm arguing is wrong, then where's her argument showing that? The problems would necessarily have to be of an objectively apparent nature. It's all hooey, of course, because what she's implying to be of that nature is just her indemonstrably subjective experiences or opinions, and it's interesting to see who blindly goes along with her guff, the other denizens of subjective superstition.

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture. If her actual complaint goes to what she thinks is contradictory at that level, well let's see it. If she's right in that regard, she can improve me. I've got no problem with that.

But you went after the guy who questioned #4, which was in fact a mountain over no-hills at all, and that riled her again: sock puppet and mock accounts and all that. I wished you'd left that alone, but, water under the bridge.

My advice: ignore the noise and move on. armchaos is cool to talk to because he doesn't take this stuff personally. It is what it is. We don't have to agree on everything. Fox's assessment of the situation is delusional and hostile. The dude who went all weird over nothing was rude for no reason and wrong about everything to boot. LOL!

I'm just not sure that all of the detailed stuff about number 4 is objective, though most of it is to me.

The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.

For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.

If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.

Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.

Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

(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.)

What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired.

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists - the Bible,tells us that God exists ...

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

well, for one - you specify (currently) science can not verify whether or not God exists but in your "wired" mind you believe an unverified bible "tells us God exists" - via the very logic ... as a proof not afforded #5 science that no such proof exists.


MDR: the laws of human thought ...

maybe it should be you in a room with a hungry Lion and not Bossy, or better why not try your logic on the Ebola virus ... since by your wired mind you rule over them, no problem as surly God "wired" them the same in response to your humanly presence.

.

No. I'm not thinking those weird things.

Perhaps if you were to just let "The Seven Things" be what they are and stop imaging things or projecting things that aren't there, you wouldn't waste so much energy on illusions and rudeness. Now I'm trying to be nice.

Empty your mind, back out of your paradigm, which appears to be some form of pantheism. Stick with the immediate facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

These things are not hard to see, but there can be struggle for those no practiced in the art of being objective.

There's no specific religious creed or religious dogma in them at all. I'm not in them at all, not me personally or anything I personally believe. So stop confusing yourself with attacks on me, Christianity or the Bible. None of that’s there, none of that matters.

no, the logic you believe is simply construed for a self defined construct you call humanity, not Spirituality and specifically the Spirituality of the Everlasting derived from all life forms "Created" including the hungry Lion applying its appetite despite your words of condemnation.


the Spiritual and true syllogism for proof of the Almighty is found for the very reason of existence in the Garden of Creation - not in a persons "hardwire" brain ....

.

All truth is spiritual. The ground of all things that exist is spiritual. God is immanently everywhere and in everything, albeit, non-contingently, speaking to you all the time.

I don't matter. Stop fighting with me. They have nothing to do with me at all. Just let them be what they are.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

“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."

Okay. So it can't be done for you. I agree. As long as you insist that logic is merely a thing, as that's the significance for you . . . as others refuse to get at them at, not even on the intellectual level, which everyone may do, theoretically.

But the fact remains, that the Logos is everywhere and in everything speaking to you in a perfectly rational and coherent fashion that you were created to understand.

"The Seven Things" stand and in them, if only you would let them be what they are, divulge profound things.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

“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!!

I disagree. I know what you mean, but this is misleading,. The electron doesn't behave illogically or counter-intuitively. It simply is what it is. We know what it does, so it's behavior is not beyond our ken, and the mathematics hold up just fine, coherently, insofar as we understand it for now. The application of the laws of thought in terms of spoken language is what breaks down. That's all. We have to take up the language of mathematics to carry on. Together, the organic laws of thought and math keep right on trucking along. No sweat.

 

[Justin Davis]

The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but they're nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds.

You spelled their they're.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but they're nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds.

You spelled their they're.

Oh, my. Don't you do that.

Yeah, that's because I started to write "they're such and such" and forgot to go back.

 

[Justin Davis]

The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but they're nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds.

You spelled their they're.

Oh, my. Don't you do that.

Yeah, that's because I started to write "they're such and such" and forgot to go back.

They're I go again morphing.

 

[Justin Davis]

The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.

For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.

If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.

Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.

Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.

And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.

You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.

 

[Boss]

“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!!

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!!

It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.

It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.

 

[Truman123]

I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways.

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.

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

You should be answering those questions on your own.


They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.

 

[DriftingSand]

I didn't know one atheist growing up. No one questioned god. Not out loud anyways.

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.

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

You should be answering those questions on your own.


They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.

Another way of saying that you have no legitimate answers. That's all you had to say.

 

[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!!

I disagree. I know what you mean, but this is misleading,. The electron doesn't behave illogically or counter-intuitively. It simply is what it is. We know what it does, so it's behavior is not beyond our ken, and the mathematics hold up just fine, coherently, insofar as we understand it for now. The application of the laws of thought in terms of spoken language is what breaks down. That's all. We have to take up the language of mathematics to carry on. Together, the organic laws of thought and math keep right on trucking along. No sweat.

I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?

No, it is not. We are not talking model-creation here. We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.

Concerning Model Creation: The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess. We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.) Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can consstruct improved models of the electron through logic.