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

[Justin Davis]

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!

So why are saying that your absolutes are true?

 

[Justin Davis]

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!

Dude!

LOL!

You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.

All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.

2+2=4 is axiomatic.

God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.

One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.


Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.

PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.

Well hold on, G.T.

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

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

You're missing something

The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.

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

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

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

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

=\= means does NOT equal.

GT =

 

[G.T.]

Justin, go be daft in corner somewhere. Or if md needs his pipe cleaned.......

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

And then we go to the fact that people with common sense don't say/believe that tautologies, axioms, postulates or theorems beg the question in classical logic, constructive logic, model logic or mathematical theory. Why? Because they're necessarily true intuitively, and most of them are demonstrably true empirically, which means you want all the axioms but one. Looks like sweet music for me, but a paradox for you.

Let's review:

Locking the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways and Throwing Away the Key

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

[Edit: it just occurred to me that some might be confused by the statement that in constructive logic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are suspended, yet analyzed in constructive logic. Actually, all such axioms are still held to be valid in constructive logic and most of them can be assigned a truth value because most of them are either mathematical in nature and/or are tautologies that pertain to material existents. Hence, these can be empirically supported. Hence, most of them are not suspended as axioms. Axioms that pertain to transcendental potentialities, however, are suspended as axioms, though still held to be valid and can be analyzed, albeit, only on the bases that they hold logically, but may or may not be true ultimately.

Bear in mind that constructive logic is the logic of science . . . mostly, but because it is still in the realm of logic, not science as such, it still proves or negates. So we are still permitted to analyze a broader number of propositions for the purpose of producing credible scientific hypotheses for science in constructive logic, while science is always limited to the dynamics of verification and falsification.

Though I did in fact make this distinction emphatically clear in other posts, I neglected to do so here. Sorry for the confusion.]

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!



Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 207 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIs There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIs There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 233 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Your problem, sealybobo, is that you're trying to make these things that on the very face them are self-evidently true, logically, and torture them into something they're not. Now, you've talked your way into a corner where the only thing left standing between you and these objective facts of human cognition is foolish pride.

By the way, that's your fault, not mine, and also I just noticed that I've been writing seelybobo, when it's sealybobo. That wasn't intentional. I simply put seelybobo in my head and have been writing that ever since. Sorry.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Anyone who believes in Jesus is just someone who had their brain eaten by a zombie.

I say that because post resurrection Jesus is a zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no heartbeat, no breathing, no body temperature.

Just another BS Story from the unknowledgable.

Hi MrDVS1
What about the interpretation that Jesus represents JUSTICE embodied in the realm of man?

Are you okay with people having faith that JUSTICE exists on a higher level
and the point of humanity's learning curve is to establish JUSTICE in our laws, relations and society.

Anything wrong with that idea?

 

[Boss]

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?

It's axiomatic from my perspective.

Again... the only problem with a "circular reasoning" argument is, it doesn't stand alone to prove something. You've adopted this phobia of circular reasoning which is highly illogical. You do know who Newton and Einstein are, don't you? Are you ready to claim they were idiots who used circular reasoning? I hope not because that would make you a moron.

 

[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?

It's axiomatic from my perspective.

Again... the only problem with a "circular reasoning" argument is, it doesn't stand alone to prove something. You've adopted this phobia of circular reasoning which is highly illogical. You do know who Newton and Einstein are, don't you? Are you ready to claim they were idiots who used circular reasoning? I hope not because that would make you a moron.

The moron would be the dude who read my post and then followed it with questions that the post itself answers. Dipshit

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

It's axiomatic from my perspective.

Again... the only problem with a "circular reasoning" argument is, it doesn't stand alone to prove something. You've adopted this phobia of circular reasoning which is highly illogical. You do know who Newton and Einstein are, don't you? Are you ready to claim they were idiots who used circular reasoning? I hope not because that would make you a moron.

The moron would be the dude who read my post and then followed it with questions that the post itself answers. Dipshit

You forgot again, within minutes. Oh, well, let's review, Post #3504: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10082017/

 

[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?

It's axiomatic from my perspective.

Again... the only problem with a "circular reasoning" argument is, it doesn't stand alone to prove something. You've adopted this phobia of circular reasoning which is highly illogical. You do know who Newton and Einstein are, don't you? Are you ready to claim they were idiots who used circular reasoning? I hope not because that would make you a moron.

The moron would be the dude who read my post and then followed it with questions that the post itself answers. Dipshit

You forgot again, within minutes. Oh, well, let's review, Post #3504: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10082017/

I don't read your obsessive copy pastes that duck the issue any more dude.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots

1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.

5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That's weird.

 

[Hollie]

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots

1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.

5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That's weird.

The Christian inventions of gawds (the gawds stolen from Judaism) are not bioneurologically hardwired. That claim is pointless, unsubstantiated and therefore false.

In typical fashion for religious zealots, you're trying to force your gawds onto others.

Do yourself a favor and stop being an asshole.

 

[BreezeWood]

mdr: Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

mdr et all, you belittle humanity by your exclusivity there exists thought that is particularly human ... good luck pushing Daisies, those who aspire will be doing so - beyond the grave.
.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.

With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.

and so eloquently labeled "things!"

cuz theyre just................"things!"

lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.

Catch them and keep them.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.

With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.

and so eloquently labeled "things!"

cuz theyre just................"things!"

lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.

Catch them and keep them.

Well, I.don't agree with them all so.I.can't quite keep them.

I agreed that god is.an idea in our brains.


Cuz pretty much everyone has heard of god. That's why I agreed. In our head by way of word of.mouth, or reading.



When the okie doke was pulled, it changed to 'biologically hardwired.'

A rational mind cannot agree with that as fact without biological proof behind it, since it references biology.

The canaard is then calling it an 'incontrovertible fact of human cognition,' which it is not even a biological fact yet, so it doesn't even necessitate negation because it is not even established in the first place.


You don't get it, huh?

Your hero is a dunce who misses simplistic nuances which call into question his entire basis of thought.

No problem! He believes the same as you believe and so his word salads must be nutrient dense! They must!!! Just cuz!!

 

[Justin Davis]

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots

1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.

5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That's weird.

Is there theological reason for the number 7 in these things, God's number, or is it just a coincidence?

 

[Justin Davis]

Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia. No it doesn't​

Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't. 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.
How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.
But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.
What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.
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.

Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.

With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.

and so eloquently labeled "things!"

cuz theyre just................"things!"

lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.

Catch them and keep them.

Well, I.don't agree with them all so.I.can't quite keep them.

I agreed that god is.an idea in our brains.


Cuz pretty much everyone has heard of god. That's why I agreed. In our head by way of word of.mouth, or reading.



When the okie doke was pulled, it changed to 'biologically hardwired.'

A rational mind cannot agree with that as fact without biological proof behind it, since it references biology.

The canaard is then calling it an 'incontrovertible fact of human cognition,' which it is not even a biological fact yet, so it doesn't even necessitate negation because it is not even established in the first place.


You don't get it, huh?

Your hero is a dunce who misses simplistic nuances which call into question his entire basis of thought.

No problem! He believes the same as you believe and so his word salads must be nutrient dense! They must!!! Just cuz!!

I'm just poking at you. I though he explained that pretty well. I don't see the problem. No one doubts that 2 + 2 = 4 is an axiom. That's rationally automatic because of the rules of thought, not empirical. That's what I get from him.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.

With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.

and so eloquently labeled "things!"

cuz theyre just................"things!"

lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.

Catch them and keep them.

Well, I.don't agree with them all so.I.can't quite keep them.

I agreed that god is.an idea in our brains.


Cuz pretty much everyone has heard of god. That's why I agreed. In our head by way of word of.mouth, or reading.



When the okie doke was pulled, it changed to 'biologically hardwired.'

A rational mind cannot agree with that as fact without biological proof behind it, since it references biology.

The canaard is then calling it an 'incontrovertible fact of human cognition,' which it is not even a biological fact yet, so it doesn't even necessitate negation because it is not even established in the first place.


You don't get it, huh?

Your hero is a dunce who misses simplistic nuances which call into question his entire basis of thought.

No problem! He believes the same as you believe and so his word salads must be nutrient dense! They must!!! Just cuz!!

I'm just poking at you. I though he explained that pretty well. I don't see the problem. No one doubts that 2 + 2 = 4 is an axiom. That's rationally automatic because of the rules of thought, not empirical. That's what I get from him.

2+2=4 is not a concept. Its a physical reality. We defined what two means, and two of them equals four, which we also defined. This does not beh the question as tag does because 4(conclusion) is not also within the premises (2&2).


"Knowledge requires god" cannot be an axiom because A: god is not universally accepted to exist(axioms are universally accepted by definition.....and psst. Md doesn't know that)....and b, its not an axiom because there's no 'necessity' proven for it to BE.


these things are over a presuppers head


The law of identity and non contradiction don't magically cease if a sentient transcendent mind isn't out there. The primacy of existence explains their basis just fine (as an alternate theory).

The hubris of not acknowledging that what TAG says is not an axiom because other possibilities re not disproven and also no.necessity is shown for tag to be true is fucking astounding. Its the most grandiose lack of humility in the most boneheaded way.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.

With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.

and so eloquently labeled "things!"

cuz theyre just................"things!"

lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.

Catch them and keep them.

Well, I.don't agree with them all so.I.can't quite keep them.

I agreed that god is.an idea in our brains.


Cuz pretty much everyone has heard of god. That's why I agreed. In our head by way of word of.mouth, or reading.



When the okie doke was pulled, it changed to 'biologically hardwired.'

A rational mind cannot agree with that as fact without biological proof behind it, since it references biology.

The canaard is then calling it an 'incontrovertible fact of human cognition,' which it is not even a biological fact yet, so it doesn't even necessitate negation because it is not even established in the first place.


You don't get it, huh?

Your hero is a dunce who misses simplistic nuances which call into question his entire basis of thought.

No problem! He believes the same as you believe and so his word salads must be nutrient dense! They must!!! Just cuz!!

I'm just poking at you. I though he explained that pretty well. I don't see the problem. No one doubts that 2 + 2 = 4 is an axiom. That's rationally automatic because of the rules of thought, not empirical. That's what I get from him.

2+2=4 is not a concept. Its a physical reality. We defined what two means, and two of them equals four, which we also defined. This does not beh the question as tag does because 4(conclusion) is not also within the premises (2&2).


"Knowledge requires god" cannot be an axiom because A: god is not universally accepted to exist(axioms are universally accepted by definition.....and psst. Md doesn't know that)....and b, its not an axiom because there's no 'necessity' proven for it to BE.


these things are over a presuppers head


The law of identity and non contradiction don't magically cease if a sentient transcendent mind isn't out there. The primacy of existence explains their basis just fine (as an alternate theory).

The hubris of not acknowledging that what TAG says is not an axiom because other possibilities re not disproven and also no.necessity is shown for tag to be true is fucking astounding. Its the most grandiose lack of humility in the most boneheaded way.

Yes. That's why mathematical propositions are assigned a truth value in constructive logic even though their essence is purely a priori. You're dispute with the God axiom is that it cannot be directly verified empirically as we can by math by simply taking two apples, example, adding two and see that we have four, but it is no less axiomatically true and of the very same a priori nature than any of the other axioms of human cognition.

Besides, all of your nonsensical objections are not valid in formal logic at all. In fact, if you were right, there's of lot of things that according to your "logic" you couldn't legitimately do in logic and science that we do all the time. Sorry. But you're making baby talk and we don't hamstring in real-world logic and science so you can say you're right and I'm wrong while you throw a fit over facts you don't like.

Oh, well.

The atheist fanatics are wrong.

No soup for you.

 

[G.T.]

Non answer. Presupper in 3d. Dip duck dodge.