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

[Hollie]

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.

Since when is a viciously circular argument, predefined to reach an assumed conclusion and furthered by a fundie zealot described as sound reasoning?

That's an argument only you cultists would propose.

 

[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 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?

No, I am not an agnostic theist... whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. I am a Spiritualist. And I've never claimed that God "talks" to me. I said that I communicate with God daily. God doesn't "talk" or God would be human with human characteristics. I am inspired or moved by God to do certain things, to take certain actions, to behave in a certain way, to handle a situation in a certain way.

I believe this is a real experience because of the evidence.

 

[Boss]

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.

You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.

 

[Hollie]

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious.

Thus you express your assent.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

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.

Again you express assent. A design which serves to create intelligent life, would reasonably apply the law of large numbers to promote the likelihood of success.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

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.

Baseless conjecture.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted

4

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

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't.

Stating the obvious... A non responsive response.

5.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!

False... and obscurant... addled deflection.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted

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.

Irrational straw reasoning.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

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

No, they're not.

Baseless conjecture.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.[/QUOTE]
How predictable.

It's always apparent when the fundie zealots have been thoroughly refuted. They stutter and mumble, write in bold colored text and only respond with pointless one-liners.

 

[G.T.]

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.

You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.

You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.

This is TAG:

1. knowledge cannot exist without god.
2. knowledge exists.
3. therefore god exists.

Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - in line one.

1. Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.

It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.

You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.

This is TAG:

1. knowledge cannot exist without god.
2. knowledge exists.
3. therefore god exists.

Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - in line one.

1. Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.

It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.

Perfectly stated.

Knowledge has no requirement for gods. The nonsensical TAG argument offered its first premise as a failed statement.

 

[Boss]

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.

You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.

You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.

This is TAG:

1. knowledge cannot exist without god.
2. knowledge exists.
3. therefore god exists.

Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - in line one.

1. Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.

It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.

But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.

And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

 

[G.T.]

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.

You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.

You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.

This is TAG:

1. knowledge caot exist without god.
2. knowledge exists.
3. therefore god exists.

Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - in line one.

1. Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.

It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.

But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.

And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Its not the seven things, its the TAG as I aptly labeled it. Maybe if you didn't know what I was talking about you shouldn't have responded to begin with.

MD asserts that tag doesn't beg the question. If you don't know what brings that up? Look back in the thread. I'm not going to hand hold someone butting in years of pages later just because he thought he could a should a would a had a gotcha moment.

TAG was the subject at hand.

Md went onto the "7" in order to justify premise #1 OF THE TAG ARGUMENT

you're johnny come lately

I just demonstrated that TAG fits the exact definition of begging the question.


You can disagree and flail your pom POM's all you want to, cute shit in a discussion doesn't really move me. It begs the question by virtue of the very definition.

 

[BreezeWood]

End of thought!!!

I forgot about you. Got ya down for sev

#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.

#3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism ... 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.

it really does not sink in for you other positions than your own ... and that the highest order of divinity, is not the highest order.

the highest order = Everlasting


the Everlasting created = The possibility that God exists - (and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order), can be logically ruled out. ... God is not the creator of "all" things.


the Almighty did not create Good and Evil, they were conquered one over the other Good over Evil - the story of Noah.


the God of this thread.

the proof for God is life without sin.

.

The only thing I can make any sense out of here is the idea that God did not create evil, so you're objecting to the statement that God is the Creator of all other things that exist. This implies that you believe evil exists. Right? Fair enough. I expected this to be raised at some time. But consider this: the highest conceivable standard of divinity entails the idea of absolute perfection. That's why I have written "unparalleled greatness and perfection." Some think they can limit God to a one-dimensional reality as they disregard the obvious implications of the construct of infinity or be careless about the standard of divinity, not define it, more at, not assert the only objectively defensible standard that does not beg the question or collapse under the weight of the problem of evil . . . always lurking in the background.

God cannot be what He is not. God is not evil. God cannot do evil. God didn't create evil.

Evil has no meaning apart from sentience. Hence, evil is something that was created by sentient creatures. The matter is complex, and no one on this thread is ready for that one because most of them cannot get beyond their one-dimensional reality, even though everything we know from the laws of thought and the cosmos beyond our minds screams a multidimensional reality, which is key to understanding the problem. So just understand that the highest order of divinity necessarily entails absolute perfection in attribution and action.

There also seems to be the idea that good has no meaning except in terms of a dichotomy where there is the presence of evil, and that the norm is sinless existence.

Sigh

Write coherent sentences. If what you're trying to get at is so friggin' obvious it should be something that can be coherently stated. Enough of the broken, disjointed, stuttering, sputtering gibberish.

.

you simply lack reason in your judgement - and refuse to address the Everlasting as the basis for all that exists.

Everlasting = all Creation, God included.

.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.

You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.

This is TAG:

1. knowledge cannot exist without god.
2. knowledge exists.
3. therefore god exists.

Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - in line one.

1. Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.

It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.

But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.

And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Did someone slip you a dose of the date rape drug?

 

[G.T.]

The "seven things" for all intents and purposes -- are a fucking side show in order to try to save the failure that is TAG.

 

[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?

No, I am not an agnostic theist... whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. I am a Spiritualist. And I've never claimed that God "talks" to me. I said that I communicate with God daily. God doesn't "talk" or God would be human with human characteristics. I am inspired or moved by God to do certain things, to take certain actions, to behave in a certain way, to handle a situation in a certain way.

I believe this is a real experience because of the evidence.

I have no need for religion. I have a conscience.

Atheists generally derive their sense of right and wrong from an innate and reasoned understanding of which actions contribute towards a society most hospitable to continual well-being and personal fulfillment. They are accountable to their own conscience and to society at large. They do not require an absolute standard in order to make distinctions between the possible effects of their actions.

Atheists are attuned to the here and now. Their ethics are not derived from some reward or punishment after death, but from a rational consideration of the consequences in this life. Impulsive desires are compassionately, empathetically and intelligently weighed against long term personal and social goals.

As social animals that have evolved to want and give love, to have freedom and security, we have learned that we are safer, stronger and more prosperous in a successful group. Crimes are inherently anti-social behaviors that introduce needless risk and are antithetical to the long-term needs and goals of a happy, stable society.

Essentially all theists unknowingly exercise their innate ‘morality’ or conscience by picking and choosing which parts of their religion to follow.

 

[G.T.]

If anyone can disprove the primacy of existence, they can then say that 'knowledge requires god' is an axiom.

But like god itself, the primacy of existence cannot be disproven.

This means that you cannot call whatever theory you may have for the origin of absolute truth an "axiom."

It is not rational to do so.

Developmentally mature minds know this.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Boss: 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.

your dead wrong bossy, as mortals learning the truth is the achievable goal that is the key to Admission to the Everlasting.

.

 

[Boss]

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.

You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.

You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.

This is TAG:

1. knowledge caot exist without god.
2. knowledge exists.
3. therefore god exists.

Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - in line one.

1. Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.

It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.

But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.

And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Its not the seven things, its the TAG as I aptly labeled it. Maybe if you didn't know what I was talking about you shouldn't have responded to begin with.

MD asserts that tag doesn't beg the question. If you don't know what brings that up? Look back in the thread. I'm not going to hand hold someone butting in years of pages later just because he thought he could a should a would a had a gotcha moment.

TAG was the subject at hand.

Md went onto the "7" in order to justify premise #1 OF THE TAG ARGUMENT

you're johnny come lately

I just demonstrated that TAG fits the exact definition of begging the question.


You can disagree and flail your pom POM's all you want to, cute shit in a discussion doesn't really move me. It begs the question by virtue of the very definition.

Again... just because there is a circular reasoning doesn't mean it's incorrect.

1. Crime is committed by criminals.
2. There are lots of criminals.
3. Crime is high because there are lots of criminals.

Circular reasoning, but absolutely valid.

Newton provided a mathematical basis for the simple idea that it takes a larger amount of force to move more massive objects from rest or to alter their trajectories, and for the first time quantified the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. He invented calculus to more precisely define the interrelationships between position, velocity, and acceleration of masses, but references to length (and optionally time) in his theory always involves circular reasoning.

Einstein was able to build on the work of Newton, Lorentz and the null result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment to demonstrate that length and time were not invariants, that the only universal "invariant" is the speed of light, and that nothing really makes sense in physics at higher velocities until this fundamental and relative relationship is taken into account. All of this was accomplished without reference to what a length (or time interval, or electromagnetic radiation) actually is, so it actually involved a greater amount circular reasoning than Newton's.

So basically, pointing to one small part of an argument and screaming "circular reasoning!" is foolish and doesn't comport with rationality.

 

[Boss]

I have no need for religion. I have a conscience.

Then you are spiritually guided.

 

[G.T.]

So now you went from its not begging the question - to "other arguments beg the question."

You agree right, it begs the question.

I'll continue once you answer.

BTW your argument with the criminals is not the same thing. Crime is high is your conclusion. Crime is high is not in your premise.

 

[Boss]

So now you went from its not begging the question - to "other arguments beg the question."

You agree right, it begs the question.

I'll continue once you answer.

BTW your argument with the criminals is not the same thing. Crime is high is your conclusion. Crime is high is not in your premise.

As I said, circular reasoning is perfectly acceptable as part of an overall argument. I just gave you examples of Newton and Einstein, two of the greatest scientific minds the world has known, and how they used circular reasoning in their theories. So whether the TAG argument IS or ISN'T circular reasoning, makes no difference to the overall argument Rawlings presents.

And yes, my crime argument is still circular reasoning, I may not have put it in the proper format for you to comprehend it as such, but it's still a circular argument.

 

[G.T.]

I mean - is tag circular or is it not boss?

Please - lettuce snow what you think.

And yes, circles alone don't make something fallacious; however they typically ARE fallacious hence 'begging the question' is specifically defined as an informal fallacy. Not an informal 'sound argument.'

Axioms are how circular reasoning escapes fallacy.

Do you know how something does or does not qualify as an axiom boss?

Is TAG circular boss?

 

[Justin Davis]

Or maybe in #6 of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.

Who is telling me "I AM"

God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.

Do you see the difference here?

Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things": Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Hey--I can't find your list on that page. I like to go back and reference it again.

Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around. I hope another re-posting is not a bother)

No prob. The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, A = A or A
≠ B, only this one's about God.


Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
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!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
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)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias

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.

That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted. Here's what you told us. You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that you just affirmed them to all be true. You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid. You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.