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

[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 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.

I think you are confusing logic with intuition. Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat was intuitive.

Logic is the process of going from one premise to another. For instance, if we travel around the flat Earth, we would fall.

Another intuitive premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain. Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.

Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise. It can leads to faulty conclusion. These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our intuition failing.

 

[amrchaos]

OH--by the way

This thing we call the "experience"--the observation. Or whatever you may wish to call "receiving new information about our reality" or what I will now lovingly call "the information dump".

It is neither an intuitive or logical process!!

How we go about understanding it begins with intuition(assumptions and guesses based on previous experiences) and logic(how we can form new premises with it) follows behind.

Normally, if there is nonsense conclusions being reach from logical arguments, it is probably due to our intuitive assumptions being wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

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!

Actually Dawkins and anti theist science is something new. For years we weren't allowed to talk. Remember? Hence why religion is "hard wired" into us. AKA Brainwashed over the centuries.

And science has come a long way in the last 40 years so our arguments are new. And every time we show you guys that what you think is god isn't, your god gets smaller and smaller. To the point you are now back where you started, which is defending a generic god.

That's what we did when we were cavemen and the Greeks had every argument that you and I are having back when they had Greek gods. So in some ways our arguments are thousands of years old and in some ways they are new.

We have always wondered how/why. We hate not knowing. And the truth is, we don't know. But you liars say god came and visited Noah, Adam, Moses and then came and humped Mary. Some of you even claim god has visited you. You should all be locked up.

 

[sealybobo]

“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.

I think you are confusing logic with intuition. Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat was intuitive.

Logic is the process of going from one premise to another. For instance, if we travel around the flat Earth, we would fall.

Another intuitive premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain. Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.

Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise. It can leads to faulty conclusion. These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our intuition failing.

I really hate to defend boss because he is wrong, but I was looking at my favorite atheist site for a point that explains why you are right, and I came across this: "The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity." Boss has all these things.

Here is where he goes wrong. Remember, Boss is absolutely 100% SURE there is a god. It even talks to him and helps him in life.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

 

[sealybobo]

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"?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

 

[sealybobo]

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"?

Cosmological argument - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

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"?

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’.

 

[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.

I think you are confusing logic with intuition. Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat was intuitive.

Logic is the process of going from one premise to another. For instance, if we travel around the flat Earth, we would fall.

Another intuitive premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain. Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.

Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise. It can leads to faulty conclusion. These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our intuition failing.

I really hate to defend boss because he is wrong, but I was looking at my favorite atheist site for a point that explains why you are right, and I came across this: "The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity." Boss has all these things.

Here is where he goes wrong. Remember, Boss is absolutely 100% SURE there is a god. It even talks to him and helps him in life.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

And yet, with all your wind and copy/paste from atheist blogs, you can't disprove a word I've said. You constantly bounce between "we simply don't know" to "we know you're wrong!" Obviously, both cannot be true at the same time.

 

[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.

I think you are confusing logic with intuition. Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat was intuitive.

Logic is the process of going from one premise to another. For instance, if we travel around the flat Earth, we would fall.

Another intuitive premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain. Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.

Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise. It can leads to faulty conclusion. These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our intuition failing.

I never said that logic failed. I said our perceptions of logic failed. You're saying our perceptions of logic are intuitive, and I have no argument with that.

 

[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.

[Premise:] 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 construct improved models of the electron through logic.

I'm sorry, but the your premise is not well-founded, and the emboldened portion of your post does not follow.

First of all, when scientists say that the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level defy our normal perception of things at the Newtonian level of physics, they're speaking informally. They don't mean that the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level are in actuality irrational, incomprehensible or even inconsistent with the currently revised edition of Newtonian physics.

But to understand why all of the above is true we begin with the correct philosophical understanding of things:

Assuming I understand you correctly, if we were to all go along with what you're suggesting, we'd be going backwards in our understanding of things, not forward, and we'd be doing so in defiance of what the laws of thought (comprehensively, the principle of identity) are telling us to be true. In other words, the laws of thought are not confounded by these phenomena at all. How could that be true? If what you're suggesting were true, in effect, that scientific methodology precedes or has primacy over logic, over agency, how could we possibly know what the reasonably practical hypothetical propositions would be or understand what experimentation is telling us about these things, let alone understand what they are in fact doing in terms of their characteristics?

Science does not have and never will have primacy over logic and, by extension, over the philosophy of science. That's simply not possible. That's not the order of things. It's axiomatic that we begin with what is known about things and what might be possible about things via the laws of thought, which inform us how to go about intuiting the right hypotheses in order to advance our knowledge about these things.

The question is do we or do we not know what these things are doing?

Answer: Yes! It’s the laws of thought coupled with the universally applicable language of mathematics that allow us to know what they're doing and, to a lesser extent, how they're doing it.

So in science with the laws of thought and using the language of mathematics we can know what things are doing. In science, we will always know less about how they're doing it and never anything about why they are. To know the why one would have to be willing to allow for and go to theology.​

If you'll stay with me, I'll indisputably prove what should already be self-evident out to you in my next post.

 

[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 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.

Correct. The logic of quantum physics is rock solid. But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science.

It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and they never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.

Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would not be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.

This is axiomatic.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I think you are confusing logic with intuition. Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat was intuitive.

Logic is the process of going from one premise to another. For instance, if we travel around the flat Earth, we would fall.

Another intuitive premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain. Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.

Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise. It can leads to faulty conclusion. These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our intuition failing.

I really hate to defend boss because he is wrong, but I was looking at my favorite atheist site for a point that explains why you are right, and I came across this: "The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity." Boss has all these things.

Here is where he goes wrong. Remember, Boss is absolutely 100% SURE there is a god. It even talks to him and helps him in life.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

And yet, with all your wind and copy/paste from atheist blogs, you can't disprove a word I've said. You constantly bounce between "we simply don't know" to "we know you're wrong!" Obviously, both cannot be true at the same time.

Coming from the biggest cherry picker I know. You aren't a Christian but believe in heaven and hell and think this invisible man actually talks to you and cares about you.

And because you can't even swallow any organized religions bullshit, you have resorted to the lame old arguments our ancestors came up with long before some guy came down from a mountain claiming god talked to him.

Fast forward to today and now god talks to you? Whatever boss.

Same reasons you believe in heaven is the very same reason why our scared, superstitious and dumbfounded ancestors came up with god in the first place. The question, "what happens to me after I die?" "What happened to grandpa?"

You primitive ape. LOL

 

[sealybobo]

“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.

Correct. The logic of quantum physics is rock solid. But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science.

It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and they never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.

Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would not be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.

This is axiomatic.

The logic on quantum physics might be rock solid but every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I think you are confusing logic with intuition. Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat was intuitive.

Logic is the process of going from one premise to another. For instance, if we travel around the flat Earth, we would fall.

Another intuitive premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain. Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.

Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise. It can leads to faulty conclusion. These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our intuition failing.

I really hate to defend boss because he is wrong, but I was looking at my favorite atheist site for a point that explains why you are right, and I came across this: "The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity." Boss has all these things.

Here is where he goes wrong. Remember, Boss is absolutely 100% SURE there is a god. It even talks to him and helps him in life.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

And yet, with all your wind and copy/paste from atheist blogs, you can't disprove a word I've said. You constantly bounce between "we simply don't know" to "we know you're wrong!" Obviously, both cannot be true at the same time.

Allah Akbar Boss. Allah Akbar.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.

As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point. Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.

My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal. I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level. It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.

"Dad, I can't do it anymore."

"But, son, it follows!"

"Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​

I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term universal, where I should just stick with the term objective. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding #4, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do not beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.

As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link. He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced" than Einstein's apparently.

Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse

"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."

I disagree! And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known about God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally knowing or experiencing God. Right?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.

As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point. Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.

My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal. I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level. It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.

"Dad, I can't do it anymore."

"But, son, it follows!"

"Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​

I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term universal, where I should just stick with the term objective. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding #4, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do not beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.

As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link. He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced" than Einstein's apparently.

Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse

"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."

I disagree! And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known about God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally knowing or experiencing God. Right?

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

The primary psychological role of traditional religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

 

[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 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.

Correct. The logic of quantum physics is rock solid. But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science.

It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and they never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.

Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would not be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.

This is axiomatic.

The logic on quantum physics might be rock solid but every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

You're repeating yourself.

Whether you understand why it's true or not, I have falsified the notion that any of the classical proofs, as properly premised on the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, breakdown in any actual sense at all.

All you're doing, once again, is falsely implying what is now for you and others, who have been around from the beginning, the inexcusable ignorance of confounding the metaphysical facts of logic and science with regard to the distinction between proofs/negations and verifications/falsifications, respectively.

Enough of this superstitious gibberish of QW-Foxfyre and Company, especially after this last round of dogmatic fanaticism. This tripe has been roundly refuted. It is not true and cannot be true! Indeed, it is absurd for a theist to argue the Cosmological sans this understanding.

None of you have overturned the fact of this formal and necessary distinction; none of you have done anything at all in this regard but made false and irresponsible allegations. And this garbage about my posts being inordinately technical or verbose as if the motive were to impress is utter bullshit! The reason that QW-Foxfyre and Company's thinking is so far off is because they fail to be exacting in their expressions and terms in their minds before they put them to this thread.

Newsflash: the persons who need to be cut off are those who go on spouting this gibberish. It is they who any sensible person would no longer give ear to.

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem do you have any links To studies that are not done by religious-based sources - on the spiritual healing thing?

I'm deff. Willing to look at some objective source without a bone to pick.

Dear GT:

The book by Francis MacNutt describes a study done by a medical team
on Rheumatoid Arthritis. So this team was independent unless you are saying
that they were willing to do the study which makes them biased?

Dr. Scott Peck's book on Glimpses of the Devil was written 10 years after he changed his mind.
The initial observations were done from his opinion and belief that the psychiatric science was
valid and would prove the demonic manifestations were "delusions" and "not real" in the patients' mind.

So you would have to travel backwards in time and redocument the process he went through
BEFORE he changed his mind AFTERWARDS.

When he went into it, he believed he was right, he was biased toward his rejection and against
the notion than any of this demonic or deliverance stuff was real.

GT THIS Is why I am ASKING to replicate the studies!

When Peck realized the profundity of what he observed, it took him 10 years to process the changes
he went through. He realized in the rest of the world, this division between religion and science, faith
and reason was blocked off with huge walls and barriers.

And what he found toppled that whole mindset.

So there isn't a widespread common knowledge of this yet.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING TO DO.

If we had this knowledge already studied and out there
WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS DEBATE BECAUSE IT WOULD ALREADY BE ESTABLISHED.

This spiritual healing woudl be treated like dreams or gravity as something we already accept as naturally occurring.

So I can show you what I found, and maybe there are other studies out there
but suppressed because of this "public divorce" between science and religion
that are treated as opposites of each other.

I can try to contact the healing ministries I recommended,
and see if we can set up a formal research study in Houston since there
are institutes and programs there just for addressing religion, ethics and medical practice.

Until more people ask, then the research has been scattered.

We need a central, public study done to establish this formallhy.

That's EXACTLY What I am asking for.

So you are asking me for what I asking to be set up so we CAN have it!

BTW GT I hope you are not asking something like this:
"someone cite a study that shows science is valid without following the scientific method
because that would impose a bias if all the people looking into it are either scientists or believe science to be valid."

the people doing the study do NOT need to be Christian or believe in Christianity,
but they DO need to be openminded enough to do the study.

And it is rare to find those people.

Many people who believe are open to Christianity so it makes sense to them already.

Most people who do NOT believe in Spiritual Healing either REJECT Christianity or Science or both
so if you are looking for people like Scott Peck who didn't believe it but still did his own study anyway, good luck.

You are one of the rare people willing to look into it who doesn't already believe in it.

Dr. Phillip Goldfedder had to observe it on his own, and he changed his mind when he saw proof.

But now he sees that it is valid enough to make it worth doing studies on it,
he already counts as biased because he believe it already!

So we'd have to find more people (like Scott Peck) who believe in doing the proof,
but aren't believers in Spiritual Healing yet.

He was rare, as he was even biased AGAINST it and went his own studies using the scientific method.
And his conclusion was that t his needed formal research and studies to establish this publicly
as a regular, valid method to be used with other forms of mental and medical treatment.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.

As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point. Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.

My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal. I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level. It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.

"Dad, I can't do it anymore."

"But, son, it follows!"

"Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​

I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term universal, where I should just stick with the term objective. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding #4, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do not beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.

As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link. He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced" than Einstein's apparently.

Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse

"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."

I disagree! And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known about God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally knowing or experiencing God. Right?

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

The primary psychological role of traditional religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

Very good, Sealybobo.
And this applies also to people in denial on BOTH sides.

The logical NEUTRAL position is that God represents something
that can neither be proven nor disproven by empirical science.

So either accepting God on faith or rejecting God on faith
shows a bias toward something not empirical proven but could still be fallable, false or change
but we are CERTAIN it is or isn't.

People believe what they are meant to believe at the time.

 

[Boss]

I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.

I think our ability to understand things is equal, but our perception of understanding differs. We have different perceptions because we have different perspectives. Our ability to rationalize or be objective stems from our perceptions. We don't all see the glass half full, some see it half empty, and some may not even see the glass at all, while still others may see a totally full glass.

We hinge our faith in what we believe on words like objective, reasoned, logical, axiomatic, because these help bolster our faith in what we believe as truth. At the most elementary level, everything we claim to know as truth requires faith. Ironically, this may be the greatest proof for God.