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

[MaryL]

OK. God is dead. The secret is out. Know a nice deli in the Bronx?

 

[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"?

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.


[

Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..

First, the assumption of what all humans knows. Some humans do not know some of these things. We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!

Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion. Which religion's morality are we to use here? Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral. Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men? Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?

Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality? I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily. However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped.

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.

I kind of figured that.

 

[MaryL]

With Kosher pickles.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!

It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that cannot be refuted. These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such upon reflection. That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.

These things are and cannot be refuted. There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year. Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else. #3 - #7 necessarily follow from #1 and #2.

If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude. Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes. Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.

 

[sealybobo]

OK. God is dead. The secret is out. Know a nice deli in the Bronx?

Think about how all the other gods before the Jesus god have come and gone in 200,000 years. There were probably at least 999 other gods before the Jesus god and even a few since him. The Mormon story is 214 years old and the Muslim story is 500.

I just hope that when the Abrahamic God is gone we go back to a generic god. No more lies about how god visited you and said you go to heaven and everyone against you goes to hell. That's just a lie.

 

[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.


[

Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..

First, the assumption of what all humans knows. Some humans do not know some of these things. We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!

Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion. Which religion's morality are we to use here? Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral. Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men? Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?

Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality? I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily. However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped.

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.

I kind of figured that.

They do know these things upon reflection. What they choose to believe is irrelevant.

 

[Boss]

You are damn right superstition is a spiritual concept.

Well if superstition is a spiritual concept, it couldn't be the basis for our inventing spirituality. This defies logic. You are essentially trying to argue that the thing which invented spirituality was something spiritual.

You have shown NO evidence of when on the timeline of human history, man supposedly "invented" spirituality. NADDA! ZIP! ZILCH! In fact, you argue a logical fallacy... that something spiritual caused man to invent spirituality.

 

[Boss]

They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.

Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.

 

[Radium]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

It seems humans can figure everything out, besides themselves. As for sound evidence that God exists, their is no evidence. Just faith, as said so many times before. Thought thousands and thousands of years, men have always believed their was some sort of god, why would that be? If billions of people thought their is a god from the very begging of written text, that indicates their most likely is. Humans are not dumb, and thought the begging of text we believed their was a god, so how would so many people be wrong? I am not stating my personal belief, but simply arguing that if so many people believe in a god for so long, and the best explanation can only be solved with the existence of a god, I would say their is one.

 

[amrchaos]

I am still trying to figure out--why is there a need for sentience in the definition of God?

I admit, I tend to catch hell with some non-theistic arguments for their God. It is mainly because of their definition for God. You know it exists, so why try to argue against "That" particular definition.

However, once there are added some qualities to the definition, the question becomes "How do you know this"?


By the way, I just thought of something concerning that list. The claim that if God existed , it had to be really great. What if it turns out to be something relatively simple? The creation and whatever that created it could be an example of "Big things coming from small packages".

The more I look at that list, the more questions just pop out at me.

 

[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.

Uh, I don't know of any serious Christian apologist, scientist, philosopher or theologian who disputes the Big Bang Theory.

Yet most americans and most christians do not believe in the big bang theory. Read through the threads here in this forum. You will find many.

It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it arguably supports theism.

Not according to most christians
Only 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe in Big Bang - CNET
A Majority of Americans Still Aren t Sure About the Big Bang - The Atlantic
Study Americans are as likely to believe in Bigfoot as in the big bang theory - The Washington Post

I don't know of any college educated pastor that denies that.

You don't get out much. Or maybe you live in Belgium or Holland. You certainly can't be living in the US abd be ignorant to the fact most don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people.

Nothing to do with people I talk too. It has to do with the opinions of people in the media, on forum boards like this, christian columnists, journalists, authors, clergy leaders... etc.
[Quote}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.[/QUOTE]What you described is not the Big Bang theory.

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

Like the existence of a god

By definition, God is not a creature. He is the Creator, eternally self-subsistent.

Since when were you the one chosen to define god?

The question "Who created God?" is absurd.{/QUOTE]I think it's pretty good. You don't like it because you or no one else can answer it.

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

What may or may not be eternal? Have no ida what you are talking about.

[QUOTE}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.

Nobody is thinking for me. In fact I brought up a point that hasn't been brought up before. I'm arguing by using the same logic that has been applied by christian apolgists on this forum many times before.

 

[Boss]

Think about how all the other gods before the Jesus god have come and gone in 200,000 years. There were probably at least 999 other gods before the Jesus god and even a few since him. The Mormon story is 214 years old and the Muslim story is 500.

I just hope that when the Abrahamic God is gone we go back to a generic god. No more lies about how god visited you and said you go to heaven and everyone against you goes to hell. That's just a lie.

And ALL your examples are clear and concise evidence of human spirituality. The only thing you are saying is, because humans have changed and altered their spiritual beliefs over the years, renders all their beliefs irrelevant and meaningless. Well okay... so when science changes it's beliefs on something, does that negate all of science? Can we throw out the scientific method because Einstein disproves Newtonian physics? Of course not, and you can see how silly and foolish that supposition would be.

 

[Tuatara]

OK. God is dead. The secret is out. Know a nice deli in the Bronx?

Nothing dies if it never existed and no I don't know a nice deli in the Bronx. I live over 5000 miles away.

 

[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.


[

Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..

First, the assumption of what all humans knows. Some humans do not know some of these things. We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!

Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion. Which religion's morality are we to use here? Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral. Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men? Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?

Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality? I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily. However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped.

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.

I kind of figured that.

As for morality, we go back to #6.

Do you believe the I AM! actually exists outside the logic or our minds or not?

That axiom purports to to have an actual divinity behind it, purports to be the ultimate essence and ground of the rational and moral laws of existence. Again, is God backing that or is it a freak accident of nature? A latently innate, biologically hardwired axiom of substantive fact or just a coincidence?

I don't know what else to tell ya. I strongly recommend taking it seriously. Natural law holds universally due to the laws of human thought. The connection is yours to make. I never presume to know what others should do with these things, though I'm happy to tell you that I have had a personal encounter with Christ. He is real and true, but for obvious reasons, I can't transfer that experience to you. You have to take the leap of faith for yourself.

 

[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.

Yet most americans and most christians do not believe in the big bang theory. Read through the threads here in this forum. You will find many.

It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it arguably supports theism.

Not according to most christians
Only 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe in Big Bang - CNET
A Majority of Americans Still Aren t Sure About the Big Bang - The Atlantic
Study Americans are as likely to believe in Bigfoot as in the big bang theory - The Washington Post

I don't know of any college educated pastor that denies that.

You don't get out much. Or maybe you live in Belgium or Holland. You certainly can't be living in the US abd be ignorant to the fact most don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people.

Nothing to do with people I talk too. It has to do with the opinions of people in the media, on forum boards like this, christian columnists, journalists, authors, clergy leaders... etc.
[Quote}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.

What you described is not the Big Bang theory.

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

Like the existence of a god

By definition, God is not a creature. He is the Creator, eternally self-subsistent.

Since when were you the one chosen to define god?

The question "Who created God?" is absurd.{/QUOTE]I think it's pretty good. You don't like it because you or no one else can answer it.

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

What may or may not be eternal? Have no ida what you are talking about.

[QUOTE}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.

Nobody is thinking for me. In fact I brought up a point that hasn't been brought up before. I'm arguing by using the same logic that has been applied by christian apolgists on this forum many times before.[/QUOTE]

I know there are some, mostly laymen, not scientifically sophisticated. So? Ignorance, in and of itself, has no bearing on any of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin. Some people will simply miss out on things that they may know about God

It's utterly irrelevant! Such things are only relevant to snobs. My mother doesn't understand these things. God didn't give her the intellectual firepower to deal with them at a serious, theological, philosophical or scientific level. There's plenty of ignorance among atheists on this forum too, indeed, as Boss and I know, for example, it's all over this thread from atheists. But it has nothing to do with what matters.

 

[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"?

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.


[

Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..

First, the assumption of what all humans knows. Some humans do not know some of these things. We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!

Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion. Which religion's morality are we to use here? Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral. Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men? Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?

Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality? I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily. However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped.

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.

I kind of figured that.

As for morality, we go back to #6.

Do you believe the I AM! actually exists outside the logic or our minds or not?

That axiom purports to to have an actual divinity behind it, purports to be the ultimate essence and ground of the rational and moral laws of existence. Again, is God backing that or is it a freak accident of nature? A latently innate, biologically hardwired axiom of substantive fact or just a coincidence?

I don't know what else to tell ya. I strongly recommend taking it seriously. Natural law holds universally due to the laws of human thought. The connection is yours to make. I never presume to know what others should do with these things, though I'm happy to tell you that I have had a personal encounter with Christ. He is real and true, but for obvious reasons, I can't transfer that experience to you. You have to take the leap of faith for yourself.

Hey, it is possible that it is neither the act of a sentient being or "freak" event but a natural Cosmological event. An Event that may have happened numerous times elsewhere.

But that undermines our uniqueness, does it not?

By the way, the need to describe God as the most highest form/attribute of divinity seems redundant. What is more God-like than God, anyway?

Also:
Do I believe the universe exist. Yes
Do I believe that this universe had a start. Yes
Can we call that which created the universe God. Yes, we can.
Do I believe that this "God" is sentient? No. At least not in the sense how I take sentient to mean.

However, there is a non-theistic approach that describes anything that can create or is itself ordered "sentient". Do you mean in that way? Because if you do, then every snowflake can be called sentient.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.


[

Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..

First, the assumption of what all humans knows. Some humans do not know some of these things. We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!

Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion. Which religion's morality are we to use here? Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral. Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men? Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?

Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality? I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily. However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped.

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.

I kind of figured that.

As for morality, we go back to #6.

Do you believe the I AM! actually exists outside the logic or our minds or not?

That axiom purports to to have an actual divinity behind it, purports to be the ultimate essence and ground of the rational and moral laws of existence. Again, is God backing that or is it a freak accident of nature? A latently innate, biologically hardwired axiom of substantive fact or just a coincidence?

I don't know what else to tell ya. I strongly recommend taking it seriously. Natural law holds universally due to the laws of human thought. The connection is yours to make. I never presume to know what others should do with these things, though I'm happy to tell you that I have had a personal encounter with Christ. He is real and true, but for obvious reasons, I can't transfer that experience to you. You have to take the leap of faith for yourself.

Hey, it is possible that it is neither the act of a sentient being or "freak" event but a natural Cosmological event. An Event that may have happened numerous times elsewhere.

But that undermines our uniqueness, does it not?

By the way, the need to describe God as the most highest form/attribute of divinity seems redundant. What is more God-like than God, anyway?

Also:
Do I believe the universe exist. Yes
Do I believe that this universe had a start. Yes
Can we call that which created the universe God. Yes, we can.
Do I believe that this "God" is sentient? No. At least not in the sense how I take sentient to mean.

However, there is a non-theistic approach that describes anything that can create or is itself ordered "sentient". Do you mean in that way? Because if you do, then every snowflake can be called sentient.

The emphasis on divinity is not for your sake or mine, but for that of others. Some were not getting it, so I made it abundantly clear. That's all. At a glance we understand, of course, that God is God, but not everybody does, as most are not practiced in thinking about these kinds of things. For example, someone just asked who created God, for crying out loud! Tautology anyone?

As for the cognitive axiom: well, I can't argue with that possibility, just don't forget that the fact of it remains what it is. In my opinion, we have no rational or empirical reason to assume it's not what it purports to be as it comes at us in our minds, certainly no reason that would constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Emily, on the matter of the proper terms and conventions of formal logic and science. . . .

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.

Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things! To talk about science proving or disproving things, especially about transcendental potentialities, is essentially meaningless.

Obtuse? Mulish? Obstinate? Ineducable?

When you talk like this, abuse terms and conventions, you necessarily undermine or negate the thrust of your very own premise. You imagine that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data to establish a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality?

Are you trying to make your case or defeat it?

EMILY! I'm on your side with regard to spiritual healing, and as one who is an authority on the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, I'm telling you how to properly defend your position. Why do you keep fighting with me over this to spite yourself?

Also, you presume that just because science has yet to verify God's existence, such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside the positive proof for His existence via the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would thereafter be scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace. You reject the very logic that supports your premise regarding that which is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

Are you trying to convince others or confuse them?

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

The formal/proper terms and conventions of logic and science divulge the true essence and the practical exigencies of faith. We may thusly know the inestimable value of faith.

This is your strongest premise: the terms and conventions of formal logic and science.

As I wrote elsewhere:

I gave you the only logically and scientifically bullet proof foundation for the defense of your position, insofar as spiritual healing goes, but if you'd rather ill-advisedly cut off the nose of Christianity to spite your face as you contradictorily opt for the weaker position, which firmly plants spiritual healing in the soil of indemonstrable religious dogma, it's no sweat off my face brow.

This leaves you with a scientifically inaccurate and presumptuous premise, pseudoscience, that not only cuts off the nose of Christianity, but, logically, that of every other religion, including yours, based on made up terms and arbitrary logic.​

I love you, Emily, and I want you to succeed. For the sake of the neutrality you're aiming for, leave religion out of it and use the proper terms and conventions for logic and science, and faith will come to the fore on its own terms, unadulterated, shining brightly.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...

That's a rather large leap isn't it?

I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.

Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

However, there is a non-theistic approach that describes anything that can create or is itself ordered "sentient". Do you mean in that way? Because if you do, then every snowflake can be called sentient.

Sorry, I missed this.

I simply mean what #3 and #4 state. Nothing else. Very simply, the highest conceivable standard for divinity would be a sentient Being, the Creator of all other persons and things that exist. The point: for finite minds to presupposed that God would be anything less than that would beg the question. Look, assign anything less than that standard and I'll objectively and logically define something higher and so on. So just cut to the chase. Whatever is logically coherent is logically possible. But the real issue goes to this:

The term God first and foremostly means Creator! It is presumptuous to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?

Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that from nothing, nothing comes.

Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!

Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.

Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the reductio ad absurdum of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.

In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.

In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.

We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.

The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it. —M.D. Rawlings​