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

[amrchaos]

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 270 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I got it.

 

[Hollie]

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

The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


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!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


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)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

 

[Hollie]

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!

"..... BECAUSE I SAY SO"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

My answer to the matter of scientific hypothesis: logic drives that car too, not science as such. Logic remains the agent, always; science, the method. Note my post that will soon follow this in answer to the ongoing drama of GT's obtuseness over nothing.

Well, in this case I'm just talking about a creation model. The characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level are not problematical for that at all. As for the term cosmological order: that's just my attempt to define material existence without leaving anything out, for example, the possibility of a multiverse.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!

Dude!

LOL!

 

[Hollie]

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.

One of these days, you fundie zealots will actually read your tales and fables with more than just slack-jawed acceptance of those tales and fables.

Among the gawds, snakes and other characters communicating with A & E, what was their instruction regarding the result of fruit theft?

Think, fundie zealot. I understand that's difficult for you.

When you get stuck, raise your hand and ask for help. I'll check back later so see how you're failing this assignment.

 

[dblack]

End of thought!!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

GT Continues His Shape-Shifting Ways


The following is the first post in which I refuted GT's last conceivable objection, in which I left the door slightly open for him to squeeze through so that the follow-up post would close it.

Now, I'm not playing games with anyone. It's just that the apprehension of these things is difficult for us all, for we live in a world of dreams hammering us with mindless slogans repeated over and over again until they become axiomatic truths in our minds, though they be utter tripe. So we don't think, we react. The objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin stand, whether, objectively speaking, they be illusions or not, i.e., not real at all beyond the confines of our minds due to the necessities of organic logic. I cannot prove God's existence to anyone, but I can prove, rather, the facts of human consciousness prove, that "The Seven Things" are absolute, inescapable cognitions that, at the very least, exist in our minds and are true in our minds every time we think about them.

This is the refutation, posted earlier, that GT is still evading:

The idea of God is hardwired! I didn't change anything! And you just affirmed that fact.

GT writes: "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True."

Yeah. That is true, isn't it?

GT writes: "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."

Changed it? No. I took you by the hand and led to the next step that you still need to take with me.

These statements are true and are one and the same thing!

The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle: comprehensively, the principle of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired. Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean tabula rasa has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.

Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being cannot logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!

Oh wait! My bad. You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter. Oh, well, moving on. . . .

Now, this axiom of human cognition, this logical proof, does not constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that God exists nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.

The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought is an axiom of the same nature as that of 2 + 2 = 4!

But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition! You keep arguing that absolute a priori intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.

Oh, wait! My bad.

Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic a priories of logic and mathematics sans the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading. Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!

And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the fact and the nature of this cognition.

Oh, wait! My bad again.

You did just acknowledge it for what it is! The idea of God is in our brains! That cognition is hardwired, just like the other a priories concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent a priories, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.

Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.​

 

[amrchaos]

OK--I am going over this list and there is somethings that keeps nagging at me.

1)Are you suggesting that God is sentient?

2)I have several potential ideas(some I reject, some I do not) of what created the Universe--which one should I call God?

3)I must be brain dead, because I am still missing the point of the statement "God says I AM". Is this in reference to defining God as the creator of the universe?

In 6, you say it is logically impossible to say or think that God(the creator) does not exist. However, would it not be more plausible to say that it is not logical to say or think that the universe does not exist. Then to argue that the existence of the universe implies that something created it.

Now I am back to asking 1) again

 

[G.T.]

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

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!

Dude!

LOL!

You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.

All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.

2+2=4 is axiomatic.

God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.

One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.


Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.

PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.

 

[dblack]

TAG, you're IT!

END OF THOUGHT!!!!!!

 

[G.T.]

Only the most basic childish presupping minds in the universe find tag to be a good argument.

Its literally childish.

 

[Hollie]

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

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!

Dude!

LOL!

Your pointless TAG weasel is chasing it's own tail.

Fundie Dude!

 

[G.T.]

I cant wait for a peer reviewed paper on TAG.

CANT HARDLY WAIT for this peer review process that I'll be looking into.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways


If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: latently innate ideas are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be a priori knowledge, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? Yawn The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically a priori. That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.

By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News

 

[Hollie]

I cant wait for a peer reviewed paper on TAG.

CANT HARDLY WAIT for this peer review process that I'll be looking into.

Annnnnnnnnnnny day now.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Locking the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways and Throwing Away the Key


There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!



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

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 207 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 233 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[amrchaos]

I think I should clarify myself a little.

If you wish to define whatever created the universe as God, you have no argument from me.


I consider myself an atheist in the terms of the Abrahamic definition, which includes a lot more to its definition than "God created the Universe"

However, if you are suggesting that this god is conscious- that is it can make choices, can act on a whim and so forth--I have to ask, how do you know?

In other words," GOD says I AM", is not something I should take literally, now should I? I should interpret it as GOD created the Universe as the meaning and whether it can actually speak in English or not is still up for debate.

 

[G.T.]

I feel kinda bad for MD tbh.

 

[Hollie]

Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways


If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: latently innate ideas are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be a priori knowledge, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? Yawn The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically a priori. That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.

By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News

There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.

There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."

Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words are ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "Five Pointless Things"™, revised "Seven Even More Pointless Things"™ will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.

Dude!