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

[M.D. Rawlings]

Closing All the Doors: Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind

On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/)

BreezeWood said:
. . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
only the Everlasting is certain - not God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradox.

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

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

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

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

See how that works?

May​

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

Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:


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


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


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/

 

[sealybobo]

The Universe, in it’s silent dwarfing beauty, may not care about human life – but we do. So our brief and improbable time here may best be spent experiencing its wonders together, not in indentured servitude to an imaginary celestial dictator.

 

[G.T.]

 

[sealybobo]

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.

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.

Is this what they are doing?

1. Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.
   Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.
   
   All cups are green.
   Socrates is a cup.
   Therefore, Socrates is green.
   
   Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.
   
   See also: False Premise.
   

 

[The Irish Ram]

What's uncaused cause Hollie?

 

[sealybobo]

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.


[

Are you losing it?

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg

 

[G.T.]

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 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.

Is this what they are doing?

1. Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.
   Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.
   
   All cups are green.
   Socrates is a cup.
   Therefore, Socrates is green.
   
   Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.
   
   See also: False Premise.

Precisely right.

 

[G.T.]

I'm still waiting on the peer reviewed paper from academia on the tag argument.

MD wouldn't have lied would he?

Peer reviewed.

Lolol

 

[Hollie]

Closing All the Doors: Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind

On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/)

BreezeWood said:
. . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
only the Everlasting is certain - not God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradox.

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

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

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

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

See how that works?

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

Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:


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


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


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/

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]

What's uncaused cause Hollie?

What is your issue with stringing words together into coherent sentences?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

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.

Or is this what he's trying to do? Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

Closing All the Doors: Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind

On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/)

BreezeWood said:
. . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
only the Everlasting is certain - not God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradox.

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

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

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

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

See how that works?

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

Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:


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


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


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/

1. I believe in god(s)
2. My preacher and parents and friends believe in god(s)
3. Even though they're wrong, even Muslims believe in god(s)
4. We've always believed in god(s)
5. It makes me uncomfortable not know and I'd like for there to be a god and a heaven for me and granny who died 20 years ago
6. People 2000 years ago said god visited. Who am I to doubt a corrupt society?
7. Better to be safe than sorry. What do I have to lose by believing?
8. I'm gullible.

 

[Boss]

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

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

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

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

Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed.

Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter!

...we can't believe this is all by accident.

Oh, but YOU can believe that because you're so fucking smart!

I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...

Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"

 

[sealybobo]

What's uncaused cause Hollie?

What is your issue with stringing words together into coherent sentences?

“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!’ 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

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Uh, I don't know of any serious Christian apologist, scientist, philosopher or theologian who disputes the Big Bang Theory. It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it arguably supports theism. I don't know of any college educated pastor that denies that. Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people. The Big Bang would not refute the standing proof in logic and the current, working presupposition for science of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes. That's where we're at right now, so we formally assume in logic that to be an absurdity and an improbable hypothesis in science.

In any event, we do not proceed from indemonstrable or undemonstrated absurdities in either.

By definition, God is not a creature. He is the Creator, eternally self-subsistent. The question "Who created God?" is absurd.

On the other hand, material existence doesn't inherently carry that axiomatic tautology. It may or may not be eternal.

Are you arguing that something has always existed or not? Are you arguing that something can come from nothing or not?

Do you know what your point is?

Do you exist?

Stop letting others do your thinking for you.

 

[Tuatara]

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
​

Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.

2. The cosmological order exists!

No it doesn't​

3.

The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!

Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't.

So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.

4.

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

How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.

5.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.

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)!

What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.

7

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

FAIL!

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed.

Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter!

...we can't believe this is all by accident.

Oh, but YOU can believe that because you're so fucking smart!

I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...

Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"

Actually, bossy, we have a history of human development wherein gods were assigned administrative duties managing floods, thunder, lightning, rain, etc.

Shouldn't you run along and sacrifice some farm animals to curry favor with your gawds? Appeasement or else.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart. We also have a conscience. Not every atheist chooses lawlessness. Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard. As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone. My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.

Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.

Romans 1:18-25!

 

[sealybobo]

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

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

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

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

Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed.

Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter!

...we can't believe this is all by accident.

Oh, but YOU can believe that because you're so fucking smart!

I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...

Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"

Come on Boss. We were "spiritual" when we were dumb cavemen. That's who came up with god. Don't you remember how uneducated our grandparents were? Mine came from Europe and they didn't go to school. Now x that by 20 and that's now dumb, superstitious, gullible and fearful our ancestors were. They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die. We still don't like not lkno200,000 years ago. Then 7000 to 2000 years ago god visited us?

Why am I even bothering. You think god talks to you and watches over you. I'm not going to convince you of anything.

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

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

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

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

Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed.

Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter!

...we can't believe this is all by accident.

Oh, but YOU can believe that because you're so fucking smart!

I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...

Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"

You are damn right superstition is a spiritual concept. Of course we invented god 200,000 years ago. Then 7000 years ago someone lied and said god visited them and told them to write a book. And today we have guys like you who say god talks to you too.

Remember, when I say we were smart enough to come up with the concept of gods, I mean smarter than a monkey, dog or dolphin. But back then our 3 steps out of the cave ancestors didn't know science. They thought god was everything.

There is my proof! Only 300 years ago our ancestors thought glass and hot air balloons were magic or god. That's who invented god(s) you dumb ass. Now go back 100,000 years ago and imagine how superstitious those apes were. Now why are you still an ape?

 

[sealybobo]

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

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

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

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

Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed.

Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter!

...we can't believe this is all by accident.

Oh, but YOU can believe that because you're so fucking smart!

I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...

Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"

Actually, bossy, we have a history of human development wherein gods were assigned administrative duties managing floods, thunder, lightning, rain, etc.

Shouldn't you run along and sacrifice some farm animals to curry favor with your gawds? Appeasement or else.

Oh no Hollie. God visited us 2000 years ago and said stop doing sacrifices for him. He said he would be the last human or animal sacrifice and he pretended to suffer on the cross when we crucified him. They nailed the first foot and he said OUCH like it hurt. Yea right. Hurt god. Anyways, no more sacrifices for Christ's sake.