Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good for your "belief," but that doesn't advance the conversation in the slightest.Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
OH! (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...) And "N'or" is a contraction for what? It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.
That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are. Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible... Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them... and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
That is not my point of view.
My point of view is that we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all).
You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.
God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
See how easy that is?
We disagree.
God 'IS" > . < And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".
God 'IS" because I say so!Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
OH! (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...) And "N'or" is a contraction for what? It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.
That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are. Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible... Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them... and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
That is not my point of view.
My point of view is that we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all).
You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.
God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
See how easy that is?
We disagree.
God 'IS" > . < And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".
To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago.You should be answering those questions on your own.Atheists have solid thoughts? Since when?
From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary. That's DS's point.
Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?
Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization.
It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.
I guess you've got it all figured out.To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago.You should be answering those questions on your own.From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary. That's DS's point.
Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?
Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization.
It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.
Morality started the instant the universe came into being, as with that being, came the laws relevant to such... as those laws govern every aspect of that being... no exception is possible for humanity and the laws that govern the behavior of such.
Civilization may or may not recognize the natural laws that govern human behavior... where it does, it will prosper, where it does not it will succumb to the consequences inherent in that failure.
The Roman civilization came about through the pursuit of the desire to know those laws... at some point it fell away from the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to those laws... and shortly thereafter collapsed... with all that remains today, is the recorded history and some concrete and marble.
"It has always been thus..."
“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
― Rabindranath Tagore
Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
"Oh, okay honey. "
"Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
"Umm, never mind."
I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave. All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
What is truth in such a situation? What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
Understand, it is not just logic that fails here. Your intuition will fail as well!!
I disagree. I know what you mean, but this is misleading,. The electron doesn't behave illogically or counter-intuitively. It simply is what it is. We know what it does, so it's behavior is not beyond our ken, and the mathematics hold up just fine, coherently, insofar as we understand it for now. The application of the laws of thought in terms of spoken language is what breaks down. That's all. We have to take up the language of mathematics to carry on. Together, the organic laws of thought and math keep right on trucking along. No sweat.
I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?
No, it is not. We are not talking model-creation here. We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.
Concerning Model Creation: The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess. We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.) Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can consstruct improved models of the electron through logic.
Good for your "belief," ...Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.OH! (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...) And "N'or" is a contraction for what? It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are. Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible... Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them... and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
See how easy that is?
We disagree.
God 'IS" > . < And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".
but that doesn't advance the conversation in the slightest.
Are you self affirming these things because of some type of insecurity, or what?
You can save yourself the typing and just tell yourself what you've told yourself in this post, in the mirror. You'll feel worlds better, I'm sure.
To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago.You should be answering those questions on your own.Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary. That's DS's point.
Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?
Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization.
It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.
Morality started the instant the universe came into being, as with that being, came the laws relevant to such... as those laws govern every aspect of that being... no exception is possible for humanity and the laws that govern the behavior of such.
Civilization may or may not recognize the natural laws that govern human behavior... where it does, it will prosper, where it does not it will succumb to the consequences inherent in that failure.
The Roman civilization came about through the pursuit of the desire to know those laws... at some point it fell away from the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to those laws... and shortly thereafter collapsed... with all that remains today, being the recorded history and some concrete and marble.
"It has always been thus..."
I guess you've got it all figured out.
This conversation is about proving god.Good for your "belief," ...Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
See how easy that is?
We disagree.
God 'IS" > . < And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".
God 'IS'... and this without regard to whether I BELIEVE or not... and without regard to WHAT I believe God IS.
but that doesn't advance the conversation in the slightest.
Of course it does... that you're out of the conversation, because of your inability to rise beyond your intrenched subjective need, has no bearing on the discussion.
Are you self affirming these things because of some type of insecurity, or what?
How is this affirming my 'self'? And PLEASE: BE SPECIFIC.
You can save yourself the typing and just tell yourself what you've told yourself in this post, in the mirror. You'll feel worlds better, I'm sure.
Your concession is again noted and as always, summarily accepted.
This conversation is about proving god.Not declaring he exists just cuz,' lil guy. Good luck with all of that meaningless word salad. At the end of the day, you were inept at meeting the challenge. Do you need to call me names and declare yourself a winner to disguise your inner self-hatred? Because that what it implies. You're kind of pathetic, but it's cute so I let it live sort of like a pain in the ass chipmunk terrorizing the garden.
On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/)
.
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
yes.
Okay, so we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things."
First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term God entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is God the Creator! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist: .
The term God first and foremostly means Creator! It is stupid to say otherwise.
Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?
Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes.
Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.
Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the reductio ad absurdum of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.
In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.
In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.
We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.
The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it. --M.D. Rawlings
For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
Okay, so we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things."
First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term God entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is God the Creator! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist:
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
4. The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?
In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified.
your post had several errors. ... .
Yet... when presented with the opportunity to identify them, you opted to avoid that which reason otherwise establishes as something you desperately NEED to do. And which where such WERE the case, you'd have little means to muster the discipline to provide you the means to avoid doing so.
Hmm...
So... I'm going to go with reason here and say: BULLSHIT!
And after THAT, I am going to let YOU PROVE ME RIGHT!
By directly and unambiguously challenging you to state the specific errors to which you referred... OR concede through your looming failure to do so.
Now... at BEST you'll expose your own errors. At worst... you'll come up with any number of irrational excuses to avoid doing just that.
So... LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
You're flailing for acceptance bro. Stop that, it's not a good look.your post had several errors. ... .
Yet... when presented with the opportunity to identify them, you opted to avoid that which reason otherwise establishes as something you desperately NEED to do. And which where such WERE the case, you'd have little means to muster the discipline to provide you the means to avoid doing so.
Hmm...
So... I'm going to go with reason here and say: BULLSHIT!
And after THAT, I am going to let YOU PROVE ME RIGHT!
By directly and unambiguously challenging you to state the specific errors to which you referred... OR concede through your looming failure to do so.
Now... at BEST you'll expose your own errors. At worst... you'll come up with any number of irrational excuses to avoid doing just that.
So... LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
Let the record reflect that the above challenge went unmet, as was predicted it would... for the reasons stated...
Therefore the contributors default concession, is again duly noted and AGAIN such is summarily accepted.
(Do ya see how easy this is folks? Evil can be quite scary, but only where one allows it to set the rules... in truth, the rules have been set since the instant of creation. They're not ours to alter, and even if they were, we're not capable of doing so and Evil rests purely within US.)
Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart. We also have a conscience. Not every atheist chooses lawlessness. Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard. As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone. My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.
Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.
On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/)
.
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
yes.
Okay, so we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things."
First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term God entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is God the Creator! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist: .
The term God first and foremostly means Creator! It is stupid to say otherwise.
Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?
Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes.
Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.
Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the reductio ad absurdum of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.
In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.
In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.
We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.
The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it. --M.D. Rawlings
For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
Okay, so we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things."
First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term God entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is God the Creator! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist:
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
4. The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?
your seven thing are in error - God did not create "Evil" or your definition is designed for semantics and not for an actual being and is then not relevant to this thread -
that is the reason there is an Almighty within the Everlasting as Good and Evil are not things created but emerged as forces and are apprehendabe and must be to attain Admission to the Everlasting as prescribed by God - the parable of Noah.
I am theistic, interesting you do not include Fox as a Christian ... I agree with, Logic can be made to verify arbitrarily anything and that is all you have accomplished by ill defining God as a generic "token".
The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things = / = Evil
In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified.
obviously incorrect, if you are thinking about it then it must exist ...
Everlasting = everything is possible.
.
You're flailing for acceptance bro. Stop that, it's not a good look.your post had several errors. ... .
Yet... when presented with the opportunity to identify them, you opted to avoid that which reason otherwise establishes as something you desperately NEED to do. And which where such WERE the case, you'd have little means to muster the discipline to provide you the means to avoid doing so.
Hmm...
So... I'm going to go with reason here and say: BULLSHIT!
And after THAT, I am going to let YOU PROVE ME RIGHT!
By directly and unambiguously challenging you to state the specific errors to which you referred... OR concede through your looming failure to do so.
Now... at BEST you'll expose your own errors. At worst... you'll come up with any number of irrational excuses to avoid doing just that.
So... LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
Let the record reflect that the above challenge went unmet, as was predicted it would... for the reasons stated...
Therefore the contributors default concession, is again duly noted and AGAIN such is summarily accepted.
(Do ya see how easy this is folks? Evil can be quite scary, but only where one allows it to set the rules... in truth, the rules have been set since the instant of creation. They're not ours to alter, and even if they were, we're not capable of doing so and Evil rests purely within US.)
You were offered a response pending an apology for being an ass hole. You couldn't help yourself to avoid retracting your ego. I never went anywhere, I'm right here still willing to eviscerate your post, but you're hiding behind your insults and I'll still be here when you DONT apologize and I'll still be laughing at you like a mother fucking boss, no pun intended.
On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/)
.
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
yes.
Okay, so we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things."
First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term God entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is God the Creator! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist: .
The term God first and foremostly means Creator! It is stupid to say otherwise.
Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?
Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes.
Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.
Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the reductio ad absurdum of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.
In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.
In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.
We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.
The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it. --M.D. Rawlings
For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
Okay, so we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things."
First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term God entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is God the Creator! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist:
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
4. The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?
your seven thing are in error - God did not create "Evil" or your definition is designed for semantics and not for an actual being and is then not relevant to this thread -
that is the reason there is an Almighty within the Everlasting as Good and Evil are not things created but emerged as forces and are apprehendabe and must be to attain Admission to the Everlasting as prescribed by God - the parable of Noah.
I am theistic, interesting you do not include Fox as a Christian ... I agree with, Logic can be made to verify arbitrarily anything and that is all you have accomplished by ill defining God as a generic "token".
The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things = / = Evil
In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified.
obviously incorrect, if you are thinking about it then it must exist ...
Everlasting = everything is possible.
.
Well, clearly nothing can come from nothing... but nothing can come from the appearance of nothing.
We always reason within the scope of our solution plotter's means... meaning that we reason based upon the parameters that the plotter is programmed to recognize.
"Time and Space" for us is defined as "a time (scaled linear progression) and space (Scaled cubic extent) So we plot it as 'we started here and moved to there and it took us (X) long to get there.'
It is becoming clear that on some level... in some way: Time IS Space. Therefore what we see is relevant to a space within a given time, when what is more likely is that in the greater reality, what IS, is beyond our means to comprehend. The laws of this 'verse' being consistent and otherwise inalterable for us... but only us.
On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/)
.
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
yes.
Okay, so we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things."
First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term God entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is God the Creator! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist: .
The term God first and foremostly means Creator! It is stupid to say otherwise.
Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?
Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes.
Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.
Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the reductio ad absurdum of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.
In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.
In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.
We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.
The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it. --M.D. Rawlings
For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
Okay, so we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things."
First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term God entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is God the Creator! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist:
2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
4. The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?
your seven thing are in error - God did not create "Evil" or your definition is designed for semantics and not for an actual being and is then not relevant to this thread -
that is the reason there is an Almighty within the Everlasting as Good and Evil are not things created but emerged as forces and are apprehendabe and must be to attain Admission to the Everlasting as prescribed by God - the parable of Noah.
I am theistic, interesting you do not include Fox as a Christian ... I agree with, Logic can be made to verify arbitrarily anything and that is all you have accomplished by ill defining God as a generic "token".
The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things = / = Evil
In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified.
obviously incorrect, if you are thinking about it then it must exist ...
Everlasting = everything is possible.
.
