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

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I explained that to you, GT: the difference between the kind of knowledge that latently adheres to our minds via organic logic and the knowledge we acquire about existents outside our minds in nature. But you just pretend that explanation and the distinction doesn't exist. Poof Magic. Where did it go? Dude.

Umm, yes you're agreeing there's a difference thus agreeing you completely changed the meaning of one of the 'seven things' or else you later caught it and had to clarify.

You changed something. Not gt. Get it right.

If you say so.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?

No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?

No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law. And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.

Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.

Why did your gawds create evil? Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?

It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.

And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's awfully close minded.

It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

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

I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific. These things are logically true. If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds. An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.

They do not all follow.

For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.

We humans were frightened, superstitious creatures who hated not knowing things. We didn't know what created our universe and we don't know what happens when we die. So we came up with god. So humans have always wondered this question. And we may never know the answers to these questions. But again, humans hate not knowing. So it is sort of hard wired into us that we want to believe that something made us. Or we can't believe this is all by accident.

And seeing as how it has been passed on to us from generation to generation, maybe it has been "hardwired" into us.

But today you don't have to be a christian in America and we see more and more people are waking up. More and more young people are turning away from religion. Why? They are too smart. They have been Enlightened with science. Its why religion hates science so much.

Next time they get really sick, instead of going to the hospital, they should go to church and see where that gets them. I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me and they can pray.

Well, that is a wonderful fable.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.
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.

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?

It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?

No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?

I see that your vocabulary and your method of argumentation hasn't improved. By the way, got ya down for all seven.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I always get a kick out of that.

If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?

How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?

The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent. God's right there in you as he is in all of us.

The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a clear and precise manner so that I can know God. The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.

Maybe God does not care that I don't know God? Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?

Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between

That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.

According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations. I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.

I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.

Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.

Or maybe in #6 of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.

 

[Hollie]

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?

No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?

No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law. And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.

Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.

Why did your gawds create evil? Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?

It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.

And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...

It's exactly true. Your gawds lied. It's not debatable. Read your genesis tale.

 

[Hollie]

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?

It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?

No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?

I see that your vocabulary and your method of argumentation hasn't improved. By the way, got ya down for all seven.

I see that your ability to compose a coherent argument hasn't improved. Take your fraudulent argument and see if you can revise it again to correct the flaws.

 

[amrchaos]

I always get a kick out of that.

If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?

How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?

The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent. God's right there in you as he is in all of us.

The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a clear and precise manner so that I can know God. The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.

Maybe God does not care that I don't know God? Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?

Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between

That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.

According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations. I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.

I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.

Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.

Or maybe in #6 of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.

Who is telling me "I AM"

God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.

Do you see the difference here?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?

No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law. And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.

Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.

Why did your gawds create evil? Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?

It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.

And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...

It's exactly true. Your gawds lied. It's not debatable. Read your genesis tale.

What specific lies are ya speaking of? (Again... The Key word here is: SPECIFIC)

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10022996/

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I always get a kick out of that.

If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?

How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?

The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent. God's right there in you as he is in all of us.

The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a clear and precise manner so that I can know God. The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.

Maybe God does not care that I don't know God? Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?

Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between

That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.

According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations. I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.

I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.

Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.

Or maybe in #6 of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.

Who is telling me "I AM"

God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.

Do you see the difference here?

Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things": Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Hollie]

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?

No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law. And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.

Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.

Why did your gawds create evil? Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?

It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.

And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...

It's exactly true. Your gawds lied. It's not debatable. Read your genesis tale.

What specific lies are ya speaking of? (Again... The Key word here is: SPECIFIC)

Your gawds lying to Adam and Eve. I've written that out multiple times for ya'.

Are ya' slow?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law. And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.

Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.

Why did your gawds create evil? Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?

It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.

And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...

It's exactly true. Your gawds lied. It's not debatable. Read your genesis tale.

What specific lies are ya speaking of? (Again... The Key word here is: SPECIFIC)

Your gawds lying to Adam and Eve. I've written that out multiple times for ya'.

Are ya' slow?

One of these days, this board will realize how important minimal standards are to viable enterprises.

THEN... maybe, we will not have to educate the intellectually less fortunate in order to have a discussion.

Now Gomeresta.... the word is "SPECIFIC" it means: clearly defined or identified; precise and clear in making statements. Now apply THAT concept to the subject of your assertion "God lied to Adam and Eve."

Last chance... make it count.

 

[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.

Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10022996/

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/

You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.

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?

It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more. I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural knowledge. For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide? Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events cannot be gleaned from these things. But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence. The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.

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.

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.

This is in terms of 'God created the laws"

If God created the laws, did he list all of them and hand it to us? Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?


Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?

I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes. Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.

Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this: God didn't create the laws of thought or morality. God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both. This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10022996/

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/

You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed

YOU ARE REFUTED!

 

[amrchaos]

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

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

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

armchaos: Following up from this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10067005/

With that said: What the normal characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics are ≠ the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics are abnormal, irrational or incomprehensible.

That just doesn't follow.

What is a normal characteristic?

Answer: whatever the normal characteristic is for any given thing, for an given A: A = A, the law of identity, as distinguished from any other given thing, NOT (A = NOT-A), the law of contradiction. Things are what they are.

Your notion would be an arbitrarily subjective assessment of things that (1) assumes the current lack of a unifying theory = actual incoherence and that (2) the apparent characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics have primacy over the perfectly rational characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics, when in fact, foundationally, the order of primacy is the converse.

The fact of the matter is that we now know enough about the connection between these two levels, as we get ever-closer to a unifying theory, that it's precisely because phenomena at the subatomic level behave as they do, we have stability and solidity at the Newtonian level of physics!

The various constituents of subatomic physics are what they are and do not contradict the various constituents of the Newtonian level of physics. A: A = A.

We are not assuming any model of incomprehensibility at all, and today we do not begin with our apparent perspective at the Newtonian level of physics. We begin at the foundational, subatomic level of physics and go from there. Why? Because we know better today: the physics at the subatomic level precede the former in the order of cause-and-effect origin and necessity.

Neither our lack of knowledge nor the points at which the various, explanatory theories breakdown = the breakdown of the foundationally immutable laws of organic thought. They hold. The calculi of quantum physics are perfectly rational and comprehensible, and we learn more and more each day as we close the gap in our understanding between the points of breakdown.

Actually, these points of "breakdown" from the perspective of our current store of knowledge are not surprising at all, as the various systems of physics for the cosmos, individually and collectively, are doing things that serve to hold the whole together. We know this to be true, for while we may not know the details that close the gaps between the various systems of physics within the larger system, we've done the math about what would happen if any one of the given systems of physics were removed from the whole. . . Bad news. Everything collapses. In other words, we know there's a perfectly rational, unifying physics for the whole.

As many have observed, the cosmos is a complex proof, just like the complex proofs in calculus, consisting of a multiple number of theorems/proofs, each arising from it's own premise, within the grand, all-inclusive theorem/proof resting on the foundational premise for the whole. We're working on the cosmological proof. That’s all.

As for virtual particles, appearing and disappearing, perhaps even popping in and out of existence as far as we can tell from our perspective of things, or subatomic particles occupying up to an infinite number of places simultaneously, what about these phenomena, precisely, causes you to think that they defy a creation model?

I don't see that at all. On the contrary, I think these things and the dynamics of the quantum vacuum as a whole have profound transcendental implications!

Actually, you are basically right in the sense that I am taking the Classical Newtonian approach and proclaiming AWE at the behavior of subatomic particles. If I took your approach, I would lose half the board(and I know I don't have the other half, so who would I be talking to?)

But the charge that I am equating natural science to(or even superior to--?) logic is not wholly correct. I think I posted somethings about the inherent flaw in forming an assumptions that arises in the natural science and the need of logic to help flush them out.

In other words, Logic, and Logic based models(In reference to the Maths such as Set theory,Algebra and so on) is superior to the natural sciences. However, we can only accomplish so much in natural science with logic alone. We have to risk a mistake from time to time to get anywhere.

Even the act of proposing an idea from a Classical viewpoint has the potential of stating a point about intuition versus logic. Which is the purpose of doing so.

Now, the question about the cosmological model? Did I really state that I think the Universe did not have a begining? Or is this in reference to my asking "what is meant by the Cosmological Order" ?

I have some ideas about different cosmological models, but the term "Cosmological Order" tend to suggest something else and I wanted to make sure I am not mixing apples with oranges when I see this term.

 

[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.

Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10022996/

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/

You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed

YOU ARE REFUTED!

Neat non answer yo.

I'll chalk that up to what I wanna chalk it up to.

 

[amrchaos]

I always get a kick out of that.

If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?

How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?

The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent. God's right there in you as he is in all of us.

The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a clear and precise manner so that I can know God. The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.

Maybe God does not care that I don't know God? Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?

Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between

That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.

According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations. I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.

I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.

Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.

Or maybe in #6 of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.

Who is telling me "I AM"

God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.

Do you see the difference here?

Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things": Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Hey--I can't find your list on that page. I like to go back and reference it again.

Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around. I hope another re-posting is not a bother)

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent. God's right there in you as he is in all of us.

The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a clear and precise manner so that I can know God. The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.

Maybe God does not care that I don't know God? Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?

Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between

That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.

According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations. I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.

I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.

Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.

Or maybe in #6 of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.

Who is telling me "I AM"

God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.

Do you see the difference here?

Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things": Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Hey--I can't find your list on that page. I like to go back and reference it again.

Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around. I hope another re-posting is not a bother)

No prob. The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, A = A or A
≠ B, only this one's about God.


Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias