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

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

The coolest part of all THAT is that we claim from our sad little perspective, that what is beyond us, is 'SUPER-NATURAL', but, in the grand scheme of things, God, being nature is SUPREMELY NATURAL... and we are merely, sub-natural.

What we know for certain is that matter, which is to say those things which we recognize as solid and eternal are merely manifestations of imperceptible particles which bond together through energy which holds them in a temporal state, but which, due to our finite perception of time and space, presents as permanence. But where that bonding energy is controllable... and where time/space is alterable, any matter can be associated and disassociated at the will of that force which controls it and such can be, or will likely be beyond the bounds of our means to perceive it.

The mechanics of such is again, presently beyond our means to comprehend... but it follows that such is tied to some greater depth of time and its intrinsic bond to space and our limitations of navigating or otherwise negotiating beyond that which our physical being is capable.

Again... we see this on some level as 'life after death'... when it may well be 'life beside life', with death being the rationalization required within the finite bond to this verse.

We think of all this as 'deep shit'. But in truth, it's merely the distinction between how it is... and our means to understand what that means. The reality of it is what it is, and the complexity rests entirely within our own simple natures.

But how cool is it that those who profess themselves as so thoroughly enlightened, standing upon "SCIENCE!", are the one's who most steadfastly reject, the areas of consideration which provide for the greatest potential for understanding?

ROFL! For some reason I NEVER get tired of THAT!

Yep. You hit on the very same observation, and what I've always held to be true, that Boss made and I underscored. Boss and I don't agree on one pivotal issue, but the more I read him, the more I understand him. If only I could get him to embrace the I AM of absolute certainty (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/), for God is the only reliable ground for true knowledge, and He does in fact provide that foundation for us in our organic logic: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. We just need to acknowledge it and obey.

Of course, that's impossible for the creatures of this world, but they can see the truth insofar as they be objective. Good luck with that. That's why we get so much subjective junk from the world, for as Paul tells us, "They hold the truth in unrighteousness!" (That's not a slight against you, Boss. I know you're trying. I'm talking about the shape-shifters on this thread. GT is the ring leader. LOL!)

What I wrote earlier to underscore:

Boss is right on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things. Inserting the term natural (as in material nature) in the face of Hollie's declaration implies that any given instance of spiritual healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity.

That's absurd and presumptuous.

Boss makes a profound observation when he rightly points out that the term supernatural is often abusively applied to the idea of God to mean something that is unnatural (as in unreal or merely imaginary). The fact of the matter is that the ontologically essential meaning of the term supernatural as applied to the idea of God the Creator, which is in our minds as a concrete potentiality that cannot be logically ruled out, is that God is a natural Being, a naturally and necessarily existent Being, albeit, of a higher order of being than that of material nature.​

As for time: Yep! Now consider the fact that God lives in the eternal now! For Him there is no past or future. All that has ever existed (for we don't actually say "all that has ever been or will be" from His perspective) exists right now for Him. David is still killing that Giant right now in God's mind, and whatever I'll be doing tomorrow is before God's eye right now and again now again now!

Excellent post, Keys

 

[amrchaos]

'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different means abnormal?

Only in the sense of what One was familiar with.

However, I later point out that this assumption has a logical flaw. For this case, Equivocation of certain behavior in all material particles is the flaw.

The reason why this assumption was thought to be true dispite the fallacy is because we guessed (i.e. intuited) this to be true. The electrons observed behavior is what it is. The idea of its behavior being abnormal requires holding onto the false assumption that all material particles suppose to behave in a manner unlike the electron.

 

[Boss]

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I didn't say evil was eternal. Evil exists as a human concept in a physical reality of a material universe. Likewise, good also exists as a human concept... I can demonstrate:

In the jungle, a lion spots a buck, he pursues the buck, kills him and eats him. Was that evil? Definitely wasn't good for the buck. Was it justified? Did the buck deserve to die? Did the lion consider the morality of killing an innocent buck? Did he think about the buck's family or contemplate the ramifications of his death? Of course not, because "good and evil" doesn't apply in the wild... only lunch and dinner.

Good and evil exist because humans exist to contemplate them.

 

[G.T.]

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I didn't say evil was eternal. Evil exists as a human concept in a physical reality of a material universe. Likewise, good also exists as a human concept... I can demonstrate:

In the jungle, a lion spots a buck, he pursues the buck, kills him and eats him. Was that evil? Definitely wasn't good for the buck. Was it justified? Did the buck deserve to die? Did the lion consider the morality of killing an innocent buck? Did he think about the buck's family or contemplate the ramifications of his death? Of course not, because "good and evil" doesn't apply in the wild... only lunch and dinner.

Good and evil exist because humans exist to contemplate them.

i dont disagree that evil and good are human concepts. i'd wholeheartedly agree with that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

we know that God might exist as the Creator .

Your mentor is going to have such a good time with this.

And for being such a little girl all of the time, Justin? So am I.

You know he "might" exist, yet claim tag "proves" he exists

bookmarked.

So now you're pretending not to understand that's an academically objective expression? That "The Seven Things" are expressed in strictly objective terms. All Justin is doing is expressing it on those terms. That does not negate the objective fact of #6, which is one cannot, logically, on the very face of it, say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist.

If looking like a fool is your thing, go for it.

 

[amrchaos]

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?

Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.

We disagree.

God 'IS" > . < And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".

Good for your "belief," ...

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.

Careful there. I am not out there trying to reject every "god" out there because, well, depending on what you mean by "God" I could very well agree with you that God exist.

However, trying to establish the existence of the God of Abraham, given all the descriptions and so forth as found in the OT, is highly problematic. Add in the NT descriptions--or descriptions found in the Quran, and the problems of proving existence may become worst.

Understand, proving that given "one" characteristic/description of this God does exist in something we know is not the problem. If I can choose the characteristic, I can do that.

Trying to prove that ALL the characteristics/description exist in one entity and that entity is unique and independent of anything else is the problem.

 

[G.T.]

we know that God might exist as the Creator .

Your mentor is going to have such a good time with this.

And for being such a little girl all of the time, Justin? So am I.

You know he "might" exist, yet claim tag "proves" he exists

bookmarked.

So now you're pretending not to understand that's an academically objective expression? That "The Seven Things" are expressed in strictly objective terms. All Justin is doing is expressing it on those terms. That does not negate the objective fact of #6, which is one cannot, logically, on the very face of it, say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist.

If looking like a fool is your thing, go for it.

looking like a fool is you and justin's forte dude. sit the fuck down.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:

• 
  
  
  • Infinite Regression
  • Argument from Poor Design
  • The Atheist’s Wager
  • Non-belief Paradox
  • Omnipotence Paradox
  • Free Will Paradox
  • Argument from locality
  • Argument from Non-reason
  • Argument from incompatible properties
  • Fate of the Unlearned
  • Problem of Evil and Problem of Hell

Hi sealybobo: thanks for this list. I can try to post a quick summary on each, how to address
each one WITHOUT depending on there either being a god or not being one.

The point of spiritual growth and maturity is to reach an Unconditional Understanding
that does not depend on anything we cannot completely control or know.

so the whole point is to find a way to answer issues without ADDING conditions that can't be guaranteed.

I can try to show examples of some of these but it will take time and I have other deadlines at work.

To save space and not junk up this thread, I can either keep adding to my reply here
utnil I answer all points or start a separate thread. If no one posted any issues on the side thread
I already started, we can use that space to answer your points above that are just as important!

Thanks and I will reply until you feel I have answered the key points,
again, without relying on there either being or not being a god but just talking about how to work with
what happens in life regardless, how to be unconditional in order to be at peace no matter what we can or can't control.

Some examples
1. that either God has to have a creator or the world has to have one or nothing else can explain the design and order.
No, this does not depend on either having a God or not having one.
Things could possibly exist in and of themselves and we can still agree how to work
with given circumstances or principles we agree apply regardless. so this is not a condition to
either proving or disproving, requiring a god or requiring rjecting god.

2. the issue of punishment, hell, and the unlearned or ignorant,
making people imperfect and then condemning them for abuse of free will for deliberate or negligent mistakes

No, this is more an argument about the ethics/moral in life whether or not this is attributed to a god or not.
Whether or not god exists, people would still argue if there needs to be consequences to bad actions in order to have justice.
these arguments would exist anyway with or without god added to the mix.

so I agree why complicate it more, why not just address how do we want to address wrongs.
Do we believe in punitive policies or corrective, how do we deter abuses, how do we ensure restitution and justice.
we can still talk about retributive vs. restorative justice, and this does not require
either rejecting or requiring god!

so let's just come out and admit the issue is do we believe in authority to issue retributive justice
or do we believe in restorative justice, regardless if we throw in symbols of God and Jesus or not.

3. after life, future generations who pays for consequences and the process of justice beyond this lifetime.

clearly when one person murders another, you are not going to fix that in this life because you cannot
reverse that death. what about how to make amends for genocide and war?

so this idea of some vague symbology for how justice is hashed out beyond consequences,
cause and effect we see within the same lifetime
is represented by this heaven and hell business, reincarnation, descending into hell or burning away
or purgatory in the lake of fire, and saving people from hell.

we can talk about the Collective process over all time and human history
of all people "in general" overcoming the pitfalls int he leanring curve, the sins and suffering
from retribution of the past, and breaking this "overall" cycle of karma or sin
and reaching peace and justice where these ills are no more.

We cannot guarantee that justice is served within the same lifetime
so there has been reliance on religions and spiritual symbolism to describe
what is inherited from the past and what is passe don to the future to make amends and peace later in time.

SB this is like taking the "5 stage grief process" where a person goes through
numbness and denial, anger and projection, ups and downs, to reach resolution and peace
and multiplying by several generations or each culture or nation going through their stages.

Of course this take more than one lifetime to go through all the stages collectively for all humanity.

So that is why the Bible uses symbology to transcend time and space and talk very generally
about the human spiritual process and stages of development.

But I agree with you, we can STILL talk about tht spiritual process
and not rely on personifying Jesus or God as symbols of the forces of Justice
and lovef of Truth driving th eprocess. We can still believe in Justice without calling it Jesus
and it's the same spirit for all humanity. just like Nature or Earth works the same way
with or without personifying as Mother Nature or Mother Earth. We can agree we mean the same thing.

So SB the real conversation is about how do we work through the stages
of grief and growth to reach universal justice and peace for all people.

tht is the real question in life, how do we get fromwhere we are to where we agree we need to be.
how do we use mitakes from the past to study learn and teach from so we dont repeat the same vicious cycles.

we don't need to agree on symbols of God and Jesus to talk through the points and principles.
we can reach agreement on the concepts behind this even if we never agree on differnt ways to represent them.

the point is to be unconditional and include each other despite our differences.
for the truth to be universal for all humanity.

To save space, please tell me if I voided any of the above points.
or which ones you think I did not address and need to.
and I will go back and hit those points first.

 

[Boss]

we know that God might exist as the Creator .

Your mentor is going to have such a good time with this.

And for being such a little girl all of the time, Justin? So am I.

You know he "might" exist, yet claim tag "proves" he exists

bookmarked.

So now you're pretending not to understand that's an academically objective expression? That "The Seven Things" are expressed in strictly objective terms. All Justin is doing is expressing it on those terms. That does not negate the objective fact of #6, which is one cannot, logically, on the very face of it, say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist.

If looking like a fool is your thing, go for it.

looking like a fool is you and justin's forte dude. sit the fuck down.

MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been rejected, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.

 

[G.T.]

MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been rejected, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.

There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.

And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.

I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.

I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.

 

[G.T.]

TAG only proves God to someone who already believes in God, which is redundant.

Its first premise is that God exists, and its conclusion is that God exists.

If you don't find issue with that and agree that it's a "sound" argument, I'm not going to sit here and call you names or anything but I do and always will find that quite foolish.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind

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/)

. . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 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!
in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
only the Everlasting is certain - not God.

Okay, so we established that we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things" in the previous post (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/) in which I gave you some food for thought regarding the objective necessities of #3.

I've been waiting for someone to raise this very objection without GT’s backpedaling high jinks after he conceded the first five, that is, before he thought about it again in the light of #6 which threw him, but only because of his confusion over the distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. I disabused him of that, improved him. Hence, given that his last remaining objection was not valid after all, he necessarily concedes #6 and #7.

1. Hence, we have GT down for all of "The Seven Things," though, no doubt, he will continue to deny the obvious.

2. Bronco4 necessarily put himself down for all of “The Seven Things” once he conceded that his mountains over #4 were made out of "no hills" at all.

3. Justin's down for all of "The Seven Things."

4. Obviously, I’m down for all of “The Seven Things."

5. Boss is down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, he holds that while his belief in these things is logically valid, he cannot know them to be actually true. Fair enough.

6. Seelybobo is down for all of "The Seven Things."

(Seelybobo talked his way into all of "The Seven Things" as he unwittingly acknowledged the necessity of the real "Seven Things" in his attempt to do what cannot be done with his counterfeit seven things.)​

7. Based on the various assertions made by Hollie on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, she put herself down for the first five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, the other two, #6 and #7, implicitly. Only, because she ain't packin' a full deck, we also have her down for you-know-what and giggles.

8. Foxfyre's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.

9. Emily's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.

10. Now, let me show you, BreezeWood, why you have finally put yourself down for all of "The Seven Things" too, though, in your case, with a real humdinger of a paradox to go along with them. Bonus!

You insist on imposing a potentiality for divinity that would arbitrarily preclude what is universally known to be objectively possible due to the universally hardwired laws of organic logic: the potentially highest standard for divinity (God the eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Creator of all other things that exist). This standard must necessarily be asserted; otherwise, we beg the question. And this notion does in fact exist in your mind as such. You just acknowledge that you are aware of this only objectively defensible standard for divinity by the very act of making the distinction you made in the above, which puts you down for #3!

#3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.

So we have you down for #1, #2 and #3.

Now, we come to #4, and this is where we run into what appears to be a paradox . . . for you. I could be wrong, but I have the impression from everything you've shared with us on this thread that you embrace some form of pantheism.

If that's not true, we have you down for #4 without any legitimate objection in sight. But if that is true . . . we still have you down for #4, as #4 necessarily follows from the objectively undeniable cognitive fact of #3: the objectively highest conceivable standard for divinity, God the Creator, would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, as no mere creature, logically, could be greater than the Creator of all other things.

But it seems that your particular flavor of pantheism does not hold up against the objectively undeniable fact of #3 and the subsequent necessity of #4.

Paradox.

You might want to consider the possibility that your notion of God is wrong in the light of the objectively manifest imperatives of organic logic regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin.

In any event, you're necessarily down, logically, for #1, #2, #3 and #4, as are we all due to the universally absolute imperatives of organic/classical thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle.

From there, #5 and #6 are axiomatically true for all of us in their own right, logically, and #7 necessarily follows with the acknowledgement of the first six.

We have you down for all of "The Seven Things," BreezeWood. Stop trying to evade these universally objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin. For once one acknowledges one's existence and that of the cosmos . . . no one escapes the other five, not even, in truth, antirealist hacks.

See how that works?

May The LORD bless you, and keep you. May the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.​

Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/

 

[G.T.]

I was down before you dishonestly changed them.

It was a hack move, and sealy warned of it before you even did it.

You went from the idea of god exists in our brains, to the idea of god is "biologically hardwired" in our brains.

Then, when I called you on it, you said there's no difference.

That's not me back pedaling, that's you reaching and - subsequently - lying about it and lying about me. And I still await your apology, but I'm sorry as long as you carry on your charlatan snake oil ways, I will continue shitting on your existence.

 

[Boss]

MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been rejected, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.

There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.

And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.

I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.

I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.

Well I would say that an argument that can't be refuted is a pretty sound argument. It may or may not be absolute proof of God, but it is a sound argument. If it were possible to absolutely prove God exists or doesn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[G.T.]

MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been rejected, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.

There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.

And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.

I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.

I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.

Well I would say that an argument that can't be refuted is a pretty sound argument. It may or may not be absolute proof of God, but it is a sound argument. If it were possible to absolutely prove God exists or doesn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

A sound argument doesn't beg the question. That's the very reason it becomes unsound. You and I disagree here.

I can't make a proof of something with using same said something as the major premise proving it. It's a vicious circle.

 

[G.T.]

to prove that i exist, by begging the question:

i am the source for your internet access
you have internet access
therefore, i exist


god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

begs the question
begs the question

 

[Foxfyre]

MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been rejected, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.

There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.

And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.

I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.

I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.

Well I would say that an argument that can't be refuted is a pretty sound argument. It may or may not be absolute proof of God, but it is a sound argument. If it were possible to absolutely prove God exists or doesn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

LOL, I will have to argue against your argument a wee bit here. If I tell you I and a dozen other people just saw a flying purple people eater outside--no really, I'm not pulling your leg, and it really was a real live flying purple people eater and that we now know conclusively that purple people eaters exist-- you have absolutely no way to refute what I am telling you and I have no way to prove it. But it does not logically follow that you consider my argument a good one just because you can't refute it. Part of the human spirit and intellect is the ability to distrust what is not logical or reasonable to believe despite how popular it might be.

So I don't fault those who don't believe in God in the least. They have never experienced God that they know of, and therefore, to them, it is logical and reasonable to believe there is no God despite how many folks do believe there is.

Those of us who have experienced God, however, know what we have experienced even though we cannot demonstrate or 'prove' it to a single other soul. But when hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of others report the same kinds of experience, it is logical to believe that such experience exists.

 

[amrchaos]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

(an editted addition)

Maybe I should look at this from a different viewpoint. Empty space does not have any properties. Then the idea that matter can fill empty space is not a property of empty space, but a property of matter.

 

[amrchaos]

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.