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

[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.

"Nuh huh"

Don’t worry soon Rawlings will move on to these 6 truths. I’m just getting it out there now so you know we already know what all your bad arguments are and why they are bad. Do you agree with these 6 reasons why god is real? Sucker.


1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.


2. The universe had a start - what caused it?

We don’t know. We can ask science but if science can’t tell us all we can do is guess.

3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why?

Maybe we don’t know.

4. The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

Huh? Maybe you or boss can explain this one to me.

5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

No fool, we are constantly seeking him.

6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.


We're supposed to believe an unbelievable fairy tale? WE GET NO PROOF? Notice how sure the author is of point 6? As if he saw it for himself? This is what makes Christians just as dumb as every other religion. Mormons, Islam, Greek Gods, Jehova. Maybe their story is the best one of them all but its still just made up yet this guy uses the Jesus story as proof a god exists. Show me a miracle god!

 

[sealybobo]

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.

"Nuh huh" is all they got.

Actually, "they" have your concession to the utter failure of either your silly "five things" or the later disaster of the nonsensical "seven things" as a meaningful argument.

I found a 6 reasons why god is real and I wanted to point out number 6 to you.
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I'm pointing to wishful thinking. It's all in your heads Boss. Doesn't make it real.

God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.

So why do you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say? That's Weird.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I'm pointing to wishful thinking. It's all in your heads Boss. Doesn't make it real.

God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.

So why do you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say? That's Weird.

I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back. Go back and re read. And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Don’t worry soon Rawlings will move on to these 6 truths. I’m just getting it out there now so you know we already know what all your bad arguments are and why they are bad. Do you agree with these 6 reasons why god is real? Sucker.

What are you talking about? The Seven Things hold true for all of us, and you keep putting yourself down for all of them in most everything you say. You're not even in touch with your own reality.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I'm pointing to wishful thinking. It's all in your heads Boss. Doesn't make it real.

God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.

So why do you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say? That's Weird.

I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back. Go back and re read. And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.

Whether God actually exists or not, The Seven Things are logically true for us all. When you imply that's not true, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. When you imply that I have argued anything else but that, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. You are a liar. No one escapes The Seven Things, liar.

Seelybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension.

#5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

No one escapes "The Seven Things"!

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I'm pointing to wishful thinking. It's all in your heads Boss. Doesn't make it real.

God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.

So why do you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say? That's Weird.

I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back. Go back and re read. And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.

Whether God actually exists or not, The Seven Things are logically true for us all. When you imply that's not true, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. When you imply that I have argued anything else but that, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. You are a liar. No one escapes The Seven Things, liar.

Seelybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension.

#5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

No one escapes "The Seven Things"!

You are retarded. LOL

 

[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.

Maybe it was back when we were a single cell organism or when we somehow became multi cell? Maybe it was back when we were little harry rodent like mammals. Maybe it was when we were apes. Pre man. I guess it started before we could even talk. We were scared curious yet intelligent enough to wonder and have imaginations.

The question is, when did you guys go from saying you believe to you know there is a god? When did you guys first start lying to us and yourselves telling everyone god talks to you and you KNOW he cares. Not only exists but also cares. Silly rabbit.

Oh yeah... I forgot how you believe in MAGIC!

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Maybe it was back when we were a single cell organism or when we somehow became multi cell? Maybe it was back when we were little harry rodent like mammals. Maybe it was when we were apes. Pre man. I guess it started before we could even talk. We were scared curious yet intelligent enough to wonder and have imaginations.

The question is, when did you guys go from saying you believe to you know there is a god? When did you guys first start lying to us and yourselves telling everyone god talks to you and you KNOW he cares. Not only exists but also cares. Silly rabbit.

Oh yeah... I forgot how you believe in MAGIC!

Are his 7 points valid to you? Just wondering.

 

[Boss]

Are his 7 points valid to you? Just wondering.

Yep.

My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely know truth. The best mortals can do is BELIEVE they know truth. Only God can know truth.

 

[Hollie]

Don’t worry soon Rawlings will move on to these 6 truths. I’m just getting it out there now so you know we already know what all your bad arguments are and why they are bad. Do you agree with these 6 reasons why god is real? Sucker.

What are you talking about? The Seven Things hold true for all of us, and you keep putting yourself down for all of them in most everything you say. You're not even in touch with your own reality.

Your nonsensical "five things" later revised to the "seven things" is a laughable fraud.

We have you down for an admitted fraud.

 

[G.T.]

Are his 7 points valid to you? Just wondering.

Yep.

My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely know truth. The best mortals can do is BELIEVE they know truth. Only God can know truth.

His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.

You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.

So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."

 

[Boss]

Are his 7 points valid to you? Just wondering.

Yep.

My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely know truth. The best mortals can do is BELIEVE they know truth. Only God can know truth.

His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.

You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.

So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."

Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I'm pointing to wishful thinking. It's all in your heads Boss. Doesn't make it real.

God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.

So why do you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say? That's Weird.

I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back. Go back and re read. And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.

Whether God actually exists or not, The Seven Things are logically true for us all. When you imply that's not true, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. When you imply that I have argued anything else but that, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. You are a liar. No one escapes The Seven Things, liar.

Seelybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension.

#5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

No one escapes "The Seven Things"!

Everyone escapes the fraud of the seven phony things.

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.

 

[G.T.]

Are his 7 points valid to you? Just wondering.

Yep.

My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely know truth. The best mortals can do is BELIEVE they know truth. Only God can know truth.

His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.

You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.

So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."

Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.

So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.

 

[Boss]

Are his 7 points valid to you? Just wondering.

Yep.

My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely know truth. The best mortals can do is BELIEVE they know truth. Only God can know truth.

His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.

You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.

So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."

Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.

So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.

I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.

 

[G.T.]

Are his 7 points valid to you? Just wondering.

Yep.

My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely know truth. The best mortals can do is BELIEVE they know truth. Only God can know truth.

His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.

You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.

So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."

Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.

So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.

I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.

Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?

I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.

 

[sealybobo]

Are his 7 points valid to you? Just wondering.

Yep.

My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely know truth. The best mortals can do is BELIEVE they know truth. Only God can know truth.

Finally we agree on something, minus the god thing.

 

[sealybobo]

Are his 7 points valid to you? Just wondering.

Yep.

My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely know truth. The best mortals can do is BELIEVE they know truth. Only God can know truth.

His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.

You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.

So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."

Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.

So the same way there are no atheists there are no theists? Because no atheist can KNOW there is no god(s) which is why we even admit that the best position to have is agnostic atheists.

So in reality you are an agnostic theist. Good to know.

Only one question. I thought god talks to you? If he does talk to you, why aren't you sure?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

I'm pointing to wishful thinking. It's all in your heads Boss. Doesn't make it real.

God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.

So why do you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say? That's Weird.

I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back. Go back and re read. And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.

Whether God actually exists or not, The Seven Things are logically true for us all. When you imply that's not true, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. When you imply that I have argued anything else but that, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. You are a liar. No one escapes The Seven Things, liar.

Seelybobo writes:

Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
2. Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
3. You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
4. If your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.
5. Theists can't prove god exists.
6. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and #7 by extension.

#5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

No one escapes "The Seven Things"!

You are retarded. LOL

His reasoning is sound... that you 'feel' that sound reasoning is a sign of sub-standard cognition, doesn't bode well for you own cognitive means.

What you've just managed to do there is profess the classic progressive response to superior reasoning, the oft touted but never successful: "Nuh Huh" retort...

While popular in some otherwise unenviable circles, it amounts to little more than the consistent product of the Intellectual Minimum Wage.