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

[amrchaos]

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.

Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe). In order to gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here. I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against. But I have no qualms with it.

 

[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.

Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe). In order to gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here. I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against. But I have no qualms with it.

You're missing something

The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.

IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.

 

[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!

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.

Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe). In order to gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here. I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against. But I have no qualms with it.

In your comment above, substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "god".

 

[sealybobo]

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.

So is "the devil". So good is now god and bad is now evil? Is that all that god is? Anytime I smile that's god and anytime I get mad that's the devil? Ok.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe). In order to gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here. I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against. But I have no qualms with it.

You're missing something

The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.

IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.

What created the creator? You can't have this both ways. If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator. Who are god's parents?

Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god? I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever. Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.

 

[amrchaos]

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!

Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.

So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?

Again, I don't have a problem with this.

But how does this relate to morality? I guess you have to add another description to God to get this. If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here. But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?

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.

Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe). In order to gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here. I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against. But I have no qualms with it.

In your comment above, substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "god".

Hey--If you wish to call "That which created the universe" the Easter Bunny, hey that can work for me too.

I am still at non-theism here. We have an Easter Bunny with a clear definition but the hop to a recognizable conscious (or any unrecognizable consciousness, for that matter--if that is even possible?) got me stuck on the Bunny trail.

I am really waiting for someone to equate this God to the God of Abraham.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Well, I don't know why an infinitely powerful God could not speak any language He pleased, beginning with the universal language of mathematics, and the God of The Seven Things is manifestly sentient and personal. But you'll have to make up your own mind on that one. "The Seven Things" objectively and logically hold, including the incontrovertible, positive proof of #6 due to the absolute and universal laws of organic, human thought. Is that voice in our heads that we hear as our own each time we regard the objective facts of existence and origin His voice telling us that I AM! or a paradox of human cognition, a freakish accident of nature?

 

[Hollie]

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.

Well, I don't know why an infinitely powerful God could not speak any language He pleased, beginning with the universal language of mathematics, and the God of The Seven Things is manifestly sentient and personal. But you'll have to make up your own mind on that one. "The Seven Things" objectively and logically hold, including the incontrovertible, positive proof of #6 due to the absolute and universal laws of organic, human thought. Is that voice in our heads that we hear as our own each time we regard the objective facts of existence and origin His voice telling us that I AM! or a paradox of human cognition, a freakish accident of nature?

Your Seven Pointless Things are not incontrovertible, positive proof of anything but your callous disregard for reason and rationality.

 

[dblack]

All hail The Seven Things!!!!

 

[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.

Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe). In order to gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here. I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against. But I have no qualms with it.

You're missing something

The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.

IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.

What created the creator? You can't have this both ways. If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator. Who are god's parents?

Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god? I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever. Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.

I didn't say we were created. You must a misread my post.

=\= means does NOT equal.

 

[Tuatara]

One thing I find interesting is christians will say God created the universe, the big bang didn't happen because something can't be created out of nothing. A typical response is "who created god then?" The christian goes on to say god has always been there. Assuming that logic, couldn't it be said that the chemical compounds to create the big bang have always been there.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe). In order to gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here. I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against. But I have no qualms with it.

You're missing something

The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.

IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.

What created the creator? You can't have this both ways. If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator. Who are god's parents?

Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god? I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever. Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.

I don't think that is what Rawlings is trying to argue. Go back t his definition and you would realize that the God he purposes is not the same as the Gods of the Bible, Torah or Quran.

Those gods require alot more than "that which created the Universe"

Some people says the Big Bang created the Universe. Is the Big Bang God? The Big Bang is not the God of those Holy Books so where does that leaves us.

(Using what you say, Is whatever that caused the Big Bang God? Probably not since it is whatever that created the universe is God, and God is the Big Bang. Whatever created the Big Bang has yet to be labeled!!)

 

[sealybobo]

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.

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.

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.

If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces. You don't care about that maggot. You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.

Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species? They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water. If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.

So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere. Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets. Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled. If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened. We were lucky that meteor hit. It wasn't a god. But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed. What was god waiting for all that time? What was up with the dinosaurs? Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE? Dummies! LOL.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe). In order to gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here. I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against. But I have no qualms with it.

You're missing something

The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.

IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.

What created the creator? You can't have this both ways. If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator. Who are god's parents?

Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god? I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever. Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.

I don't think that is what Rawlings is trying to argue. Go back t his definition and you would realize that the God he purposes is not the same as the Gods of the Bible, Torah or Quran.

Those gods require alot more than "that which created the Universe"

Some people says the Big Bang created the Universe. Is the Big Bang God? The Big Bang is not the God of those Holy Books so where does that leaves us.

(Using what you say, Is whatever that caused the Big Bang God? Probably not since it is whatever that created the universe is God, and God is the Big Bang. Whatever created the Big Bang has yet to be labeled!!)

Actually....MD asserts god is sentient.

 

[sealybobo]

All hail The Seven Things!!!!

Isn't that from Planet of the Apes or something?

 

[sealybobo]

Or Animal Farm

 

[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

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!

Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.

So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?

Again, I don't have a problem with this.

But how does this relate to morality? I guess you have to add another description to God to get this. If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here. But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?

Some need it to be emphatically spelled out. We know morality via the laws of organic thought too: the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle. We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity. Contradiction. No third option. So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.

Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you.


[

 

[Hollie]

One thing I find interesting is christians will say God created the universe, the big bang didn't happen because something can't be created out of nothing. A typical response is "who created god then?" The christian goes on to say god has always been there. Assuming that logic, couldn't it be said that the chemical compounds to create the big bang have always been there.

Sure. Just be prepared for Christians to whip out the uncaused caused™ disclaimer.

The christian gods get special dispensations from any standard of grown up conversation.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Well, I don't know why an infinitely powerful God could not speak any language He pleased, beginning with the universal language of mathematics, and the God of The Seven Things is manifestly sentient and personal. But you'll have to make up your own mind on that one. "The Seven Things" objectively and logically hold, including the incontrovertible, positive proof of #6 due to the absolute and universal laws of organic, human thought. Is that voice in our heads that we hear as our own each time we regard the objective facts of existence and origin His voice telling us that I AM! or a paradox of human cognition, a freakish accident of nature?

Your Seven Pointless Things are not incontrovertible, positive proof of anything but your callous disregard for reason and rationality.

That's because it makes perfect sense to him. But then again people living 350 years, or 3 days in the belly of a whale, or virgin births, or god sacrificing himself on the cross, which really isn't a sacrifice at all if you think about it. Talking snakes, virgin births, parting seas, noah story, burning bushes, heaven, hell,

The primary psychological role of religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

 

[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!

Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.

So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?

Again, I don't have a problem with this.

But how does this relate to morality? I guess you have to add another description to God to get this. If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here. But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?

Some need it to be emphatically spelled out. We know morality via the laws of organic thought too: the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle. We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity. Contradiction. No third option. So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.

Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you.

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.

Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe). In order to gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here. I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against. But I have no qualms with it.

I have no objection to that. I only point out that the objectively highest standard of divinity would be sentient and non-contingent.

In your comment above, substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "god".

Hey--If you wish to call "That which created the universe" the Easter Bunny, hey that can work for me too.

I am still at non-theism here. We have an Easter Bunny with a clear definition but the hop to a recognizable conscious (or any unrecognizable consciousness, for that matter--if that is even possible?) got me stuck on the Bunny trail.

I am really waiting for someone to equate this God to the God of Abraham.

The fundie crank is losing it.

I've noticed that when M. Pompous Rawling begins thumping his bibles extra hard, It's because he sees his arguments self destructing.