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

[sealybobo]

[

No, you haven't. You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question. I do question them.
.

That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it. It's when people make arg

Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?

I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​

It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,

just because it looks impressive.

The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.

All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin. I'm a new believer. I just recently began to read the literature. But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways. That means he owns the topic in his own right. He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't. That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote. What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him. But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down. What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue. To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts. I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists. No he's not. What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.

I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.

So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance. Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?

I don't believe you. A learned believer knows that blind faith is anathema to the teachings of the Bible. You misunderstood them or heard what you wanted to hear. And the kind of faith they would have been talking about would have been about man's dependency on God, trusting in God which grows over time with understanding and experience. Besides that has to do with a deeper level of theology, not the objective universals of this OP.

The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.

How is blind faith dedicated to evil?

 

[G.T.]

ex nihilo nihil fit

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.

If "God" is not defined as a cognitive entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for that but most definitely not proof of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.

If God is defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind as a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being knows that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.

 

[MaxGrit]

Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am

Exodus 3

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”

And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

 

[G.T.]

The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.

How is blind faith dedicated to evil?

That's what it all boils down to.

Agnosticism = honesty.

Everything else is reduced to presupposition and naked assertion.

 

[G.T.]

Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am

Exodus 3

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”

And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

This is not proof of a Biblical God.

You had to have known that, though.

 

[MaxGrit]

Ex nihilo nihil fit is a good start. See my sig..

 

[MaxGrit]

Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am

Exodus 3

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”

And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

This is not proof of a Biblical God.

You had to have known that, though.

You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't see why people feel that arguing over the existence of God(s) is an intelligent thing to do.

If you disbelieve, good for you. Go on disbelieving.

Underestimate the power of belief at your own expense.
​

I wonder if you realize that while you started your post saying that arguing over God wasn't intelligent,

you ended your post with an argumentative assertion about God.

 

[Justin Davis]

I asked you before but I will give it another try. Go back into any of his posts and show me one piece of objective evidence. If you actually have an open mind that would have been the first thing you would have looked for. Without it, you agree simply because it fits what you already believe. He's telling you you're right so it must be true.

I did that already. You must have missed it.

 

[sealybobo]

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.

I love it when people use words they don't understand.

The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.

Funny thing, there is absolutely no experimental evidence to support the theories of dark matter or dark energy, yet science still insist that they exist. Can you explain that?

...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.

Dawkins is hostile to all religion because he is an idiot, just like you.

Did you know that it was clerics that first supported Darwin, and scientists that thought he was crazy?

The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.

That is historically inaccurate, and directly contradicted by multiple facts. Then again, I really don' expect anyone that insist the Dark Ages really happened to understand facts.

That's your theory? We are hostile to religion because we are idiots? Not because we don't like it?

I was thinking about it on the way in today. I don't get to talk to anybody about this. The ones I can talk to, they already agree with me so it's boring. I love USMB! I'm not bitter or angry. I truly believe there is no god. It seems so obvious to us atheists. So to me this is fun.

I love it how you say all the stuff I see on PBS is inaccurate. You guys love to revise history. It's what you are good at. For example, trying to say the Nazi's were atheists when the Germans were all devout catholics. American Slave Owners were very religious, so were their slaves. The slaves of the Pharoahs were all religious too. The Greeks had hundreds if not thousands of gods. Imagine you back then arguing for Zeus and his crew.

 

[G.T.]

Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am

Exodus 3

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”

And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

This is not proof of a Biblical God.

You had to have known that, though.

You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.

Cop-out, and naked assertion.

I understand what was written, I do not consider it logical, n'or proof.

Nothing comes from nothing is not proven, it's simply something we've yet to witness.

If it was proven, it STILL doesn't prove the Biblical God.

Your understanding of what constitutes proof is remedial.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?

Because such an argument would fall into the category of a fallacious appeal to popularity, or perhaps a fallacious appeal to belief.

 

[sealybobo]

I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.

So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance. Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?

Stop lying.

No one who is educated in religion would ever tell you you need to have blind faith.

Once again you are right. They would never admit that. They just say faith. It is us who claim you guys have blind faith.

 

[MaxGrit]

Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.

That is an argument from fallacy. Yey!!! We're all irrelevant. We should form a club.

Fight Club.

 

[sealybobo]

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.

I am a probablist. There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know. But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God. Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.

I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.

I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe. Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people. And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.

So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions. We never get emotional about it. As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.

This is what theists do. They say you'll go to hell. They ask you why you are so angry. Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.

I think the masses are really stupid. Stupid when it comes to politics for sure. They've handed our country and government over to the corporations. Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them. People with blind faith can be convinced of anything. Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy. If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?

 

[G.T.]

Sealy,

Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?

What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"

The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.

 

[sealybobo]

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.

I am a probablist. There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know. But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

What evidence do you have that they are not equally probable?

Great question. It is the lack of evidence that give my position more validity and a more probable chance of outcome.

How about all the fairy tales in all the holy books? Not just the bible but also the koran and mormon books, etc? The greek gods, etc???

Jonah living 3 days in the belly of a whale? Noah lived 350 years?

You need any more evidence your stories aren't real? I could give you lots.

 

[Justin Davis]

[

No, you haven't. You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question. I do question them.
.

That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it. It's when people make arg

I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​

It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,

just because it looks impressive.

The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.

All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin. I'm a new believer. I just recently began to read the literature. But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways. That means he owns the topic in his own right. He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't. That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote. What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him. But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down. What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue. To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts. I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists. No he's not. What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.

I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.

So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance. Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?

I don't believe you. A learned believer knows that blind faith is anathema to the teachings of the Bible. You misunderstood them or heard what you wanted to hear. And the kind of faith they would have been talking about would have been about man's dependency on God, trusting in God which grows over time with understanding and experience. Besides that has to do with a deeper level of theology, not the objective universals of this OP.

The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.

How is blind faith dedicated to evil?

The only "you guys" rambling (making things up or imagining things that aren't real) are some atheists. Blind faith is stupid and leads to sinful acts. If you can't see why that's true you might be acting on blind faith in your life.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy,

Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?

What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"

The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.

I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.

I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes. I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe. I would have to be a god myself.

We don't say we know for sure. But theists do. They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.

If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue. I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.

This is what fascinates me. Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real. They are allegories. But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.

And I have no problem with there being a god or creator. If there is one, I don't think it matters. If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.

Why do I love this subject so much? It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale. I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process. I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious". Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise. I see it all the time. I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine. And less gullible.

 

[G.T.]

Sealy,

Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?

What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"

The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.

I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.

I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes. I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe. I would have to be a god myself.

We don't say we know for sure. But theists do. They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.

If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue. I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.

This is what fascinates me. Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real. They are allegories. But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.

And I have no problem with there being a god or creator. If there is one, I don't think it matters. If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.

Why do I love this subject so much? It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale. I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process. I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious". Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise. I see it all the time. I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine. And less gullible.

So post #335 was just referring to RELIGION'S God, then? "have concluded that there is no god. "


An agnostic cannot conclude that, so I was just clarifying I guess. I knew you were smarter than hard-lined atheism so I gave ya the benefit of the doubt. Also, this bold was so not on purpose but I'm lazy, so!