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

[Boss]

2+2=4 is not a concept. Its a physical reality.

No, it's a mathematical equation that is correct most of the time. It has been proven not to be correct all the time in quantum mechanics. IF I have two atoms, each with two electrons orbiting, then I have 4 electrons total... but if one of the electrons has vanished, it is not there, it no longer exists and I don't have 4, I only have 3. IF one of the electrons is in two places at the same time, I have 5. So, 2+2=3 sometimes, and 2+2=5 sometimes, and sometimes 2+2=4, all depending on the present state of the electron. 2+2 might also equal 6 or 8 or 0.

Yep... this is a total mind fuck and screws up physics completely... that's why they invented quantum physics.

 

[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.

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

Of course the reason 7 is God's number starts with the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. The theological understanding of that goes to the idea that all of the divine attributes of God, His power and knowledge and universal presence and authority, are displayed in the creation of the universe, and the fact that He is the all-encompassing, universal Principle of Identity for all that exists, including the creation of six days, is symbolized in the seventh day of rest, the final "God saw that it was good and rested on that fact."

Now the Seven Things do in fact correspond to the six basic facts of human cognition that God gave man to recognize His existence in terms of the number 7, including #5, as God requires faith and trust in Him in order to know Him. Hence, God, the universal Principle of Identity always asserts six things again and again throughout scripture and declares them to be good, the seventh, summarizing declaration! In biblical terms while God provides the six philosophical facts of existence and provides for our ability to apprehend them, He doesn't allow that human reasoning alone constitutes righteousness. The faith of obedience constitutes righteousness. Remember all "the God counted it as righteousness unto so and so's" in the Bible because so and so believed? That's your #5 in the contemporary terms of science.

There are always 6 related declarations regarding comprehensive wholes with God, number 7, backing them. Word.

As for the Whether or Knots: Coincidence. One could do those anyway one wanted I suppose. They just so happen to come in that order and in that number, logically and economically. So maybe they do line up something in the Bible to the negative, ending with the foolishness of denying Him. But I make no such claim as fact.

But, yes, The Seven Things of human cognition do in fact correspond with the six declarations of existence and origin declared in the Bible with God, number 7, backing it all up in summary, declaring what He has revealed about His creation and about Himself in His creation is good.

In short:

1. You exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. I'm the Creator.
4. I'm great.
5. You must embrace Me via faith.
6. You cannot rationally deny My Existence. I AM!
7. These things are true and good.

There are only six and the one summary regarding the issues of existence and origin throughout the Bible and in our minds!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

2+2=4 is not a concept. Its a physical reality.

No, it's a mathematical equation that is correct most of the time. It has been proven not to be correct all the time in quantum mechanics. IF I have two atoms, each with two electrons orbiting, then I have 4 electrons total... but if one of the electrons has vanished, it is not there, it no longer exists and I don't have 4, I only have 3. IF one of the electrons is in two places at the same time, I have 5. So, 2+2=3 sometimes, and 2+2=5 sometimes, and sometimes 2+2=4, all depending on the present state of the electron. 2+2 might also equal 6 or 8 or 0.

Yep... this is a total mind fuck and screws up physics completely... that's why they invented quantum physics.

Yes. But remember at the subatomic level of quantum physics, the rules change because the premise changes, but the math has no problem following. We still have the same basic principles of subtraction and addition, for example. We just know that things jump and pop and move, appear and disappear, albeit, in a rational and semi-predictable way in terms of providing stability and solidity for the Newtonian level of our everyday perception of things. In other words, the same basic principles of math hold up; they just have be applied in such way that they "jump and pop and move, appear and disappear" with the phenomena. In fact, we have learned enough now that we can sometimes predict where the electron will pop up next or the places it will simultaneously occupy, from one moment to the next, depending on the conditions. But we still have a lot more to learn before we can do it every time, and we do believe it can be done every time eventually with more knowledge.

We now know the so-called uncertainty principle is actually an inherent characteristic of wave-like systems, a basic property of quantum phenomena, not an issue of observation as previously thought, though technological can cause problems. So we're working on better technologies that are less and less intrusive that let us see what's happening without causing things to happen as a result of the effects of the technology used to observe.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
7 - was not a day of rest but a declaration for sucess of an absolute completion, a Sabbath the same as the type necessary for for the Spirit to persist post its physiology.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not

Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.

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’.

You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.

You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. That's weird.

You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. That's weird.

You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.

You presuppose God's existence in your teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. That's weird.

Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? That's weird.

What is the essence for all this injudicious weirdness?

Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! That's weird.

We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious weirdness, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. That's weird.

We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. That's weird.

Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the self-ordering, infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

sealybobo: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."

Really?

Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in there own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? That's weird.

sealybobo: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."

Really?

I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being weird somehow.

One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.

Ah! I've got it!

No such grand theory exists.

Crickets chirping

That's not weird. That's a fact.

On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.

Now, admittedly, I've heard the weird rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.

Yawn

So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.

And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/.


Newsflash: the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology: omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life. The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of abiogenesis, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.

So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these weird rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?

Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what. This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that we are here; therefore . . .) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.

That's weird.

The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.

That's not only weird, but magical.

Hocus Pocus.

Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. That's weird.

Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. (That's weird.) What do I hear for the opening bid?

sealybobo: "I'll give ya everything I got!"

Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.

Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave sealyobo a bone to gnaw on.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.
7 - was not a day of rest but a declaration for sucess of an absolute completion, a Sabbath the same as the type necessary for for the Spirit to persist post its physiology.

.

I have no problem with that, though I don't know what this physiology term means exactly.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
7 - was not a day of rest but a declaration for sucess of an absolute completion, a Sabbath the same as the type necessary for for the Spirit to persist post its physiology.

.

I have no problem with that, though I don't know what this physiology term means exactly.

.
what physically keeps us alive, the physical form, organism of each individual living being ... the dictionary was not my friend on what I believed it meant - simply our bodies, including by our, everything living.

to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting requires a Sabbath - before the physiology that keeps us alive expires.

.

 

[Justin Davis]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not

Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.

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’.

You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.

You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. That's weird.

You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. That's weird.

You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.

You presuppose God's existence in your teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. That's weird.

Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? That's weird.

What is the essence for all this injudicious weirdness?

Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! That's weird.

We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious weirdness, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. That's weird.

We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. That's weird.

Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the self-ordering, infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

sealybobo: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."

Really?

Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in there own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? That's weird.

sealybobo: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."

Really?

I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being weird somehow.

One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.

Ah! I've got it!

No such grand theory exists.

Crickets chirping

That's not weird. That's a fact.

On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.

Now, admittedly, I've heard the weird rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.

Yawn

So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.

And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/.


Newsflash: the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology: omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life. The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of abiogenesis, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.

So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these weird rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?

Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what. This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that we are here; therefore . . .) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.

That's weird.

The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.

That's not only weird, but magical.

Hocus Pocus.

Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. That's weird.

Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. (That's weird.) What do I hear for the opening bid?

sealybobo: "I'll give ya everything I got!"

Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.

Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave sealyobo a bone to gnaw on.

Wow! Good post but you wrote "there" for "their" in one sentence.

 

[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.

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.

Theists are stupid. Great argument, have you got any paradoxes to go with that?

 

[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.

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.

Theists are stupid. Great argument, have you got any paradoxes to go with that?

Yeah,. I saw that latter while scrolling down. Too late, past 90 minutes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Actually, these are tautologies, seemingly true, though, in Newton's case, subject to empirical verification, by definition or necessity in formal logic.

Circular reasoning or begging the question are informal logical fallacies that sometimes lead to false conclusions, but not for well-founded rational objects, but typically for empirical objects. So GT's objection isn't even in the same ballpark. We distinguish between informal and formal fallacies because if we did not we wipe out virtually every a priori axiom we necessarily need to do any practical. GT's objective is just silly and meaningless, really.

The antagonist, a finite mind, necessarily assumes the mantle of a creature and contradicts himself when he says/thinks that God the Creator, by definition, doesn't exist. Or you can look at this way: he necessarily contradicts himself when he asserts that anything can exist without God the Creator. How could that be? No Creator, nothing exists. Either way of looking at it, the assertion is inherently self-negating and positively proves the opposite. This axiom is intuitively true by definition and necessity on the very face of it. We simply do not apply the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question to such intuitions in formal logic because they are logically and inescapably true axioms, anyway you shake a stick at them. But most importantly, we cannot do without such axiomatic intuitions in science either.

GT's labeling of the God axiom as such is nothing but an arbitrary bias against theism, sheer fanaticism.

 

[Boss]

.
7 - was not a day of rest but a declaration for sucess of an absolute completion, a Sabbath the same as the type necessary for for the Spirit to persist post its physiology.

.

I have no problem with that, though I don't know what this physiology term means exactly.

.
what physically keeps us alive, the physical form, organism of each individual living being ... the dictionary was not my friend on what I believed it meant - simply our bodies, including by our, everything living.

to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting requires a Sabbath - before the physiology that keeps us alive expires.

.

Let me ask this again, because you have never answered me... What kind of fucked up religion ARE you?

I keep hearing you basically quoting 2 Peter with talk of the Everlasting and Almighty, but you bash Christianity... so what gives?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Actually, I'm a little sleepy.

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not

Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.

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’.

You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.

You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. That's weird.

You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. That's weird.

You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.

You presuppose God's existence in your teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. That's weird.

Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? That's weird.

What is the essence for all this injudicious weirdness?

Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! That's weird.

We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious weirdness, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. That's weird.

We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. That's weird.

Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the self-ordering, infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

sealybobo: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."

Really?

Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in there own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? That's weird.

sealybobo: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."

Really?

I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being weird somehow.

One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.

Ah! I've got it!

No such grand theory exists.

Crickets chirping

That's not weird. That's a fact.

On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.

Now, admittedly, I've heard the weird rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.

Yawn

So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.

And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/.


Newsflash: the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology: omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life. The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of abiogenesis, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.

So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these weird rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?

Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what. This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that we are here; therefore . . .) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.

That's weird.

The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.

That's not only weird, but magical.

Hocus Pocus.

Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. That's weird.

Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. (That's weird.) What do I hear for the opening bid?

sealybobo: "I'll give ya everything I got!"

Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.

Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave sealyobo a bone to gnaw on.

Wow! Good post but you wrote "there" for "their" in one sentence.

Actually, I'm a little sleepy. I see that I wrote a jumbled post to Boss about the God axiom, missing words. In another post I wrote latter for later. LOL! Bed time.

Hey, Boss! As for BreezeWood's religion, I've been able to piece it together a bit at a time. He's definitely into some form of pantheism with some Christian ideas sprinkled over it. He also has a very interesting idea about the problem of evil that's not too far off the mark, really, but it's hard to tell for sure what's going on there for obvious reasons. If only he'd write coherent posts!

 

[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.

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

Of course the reason 7 is God's number starts with the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. The theological understanding of that goes to the idea that all of the divine attributes of God, His power and knowledge and universal presence and authority, are displayed in the creation of the universe, and the fact that He is the all-encompassing, universal Principle of Identity for all that exists, including the creation of six days, is symbolized in the seventh day of rest, the final "God saw that it was good and rested on that fact."

Now the Seven Things do in fact correspond to the six basic facts of human cognition that God gave man to recognize His existence in terms of the number 7, including #5, as God requires faith and trust in Him in order to know Him. Hence, God, the universal Principle of Identity always asserts six things again and again throughout scripture and declares them to be good, the seventh, summarizing declaration! In biblical terms while God provides the six philosophical facts of existence and provides for our ability to apprehend them, He doesn't allow that human reasoning alone constitutes righteousness. The faith of obedience constitutes righteousness. Remember all "the God counted it as righteousness unto so and so's" in the Bible because so and so believed? That's your #5 in the contemporary terms of science.

There are always 6 related declarations regarding comprehensive wholes with God, number 7, backing them. Word.

As for the Whether or Knots: Coincidence. One could do those anyway one wanted I suppose. They just so happen to come in that order and in that number, logically and economically. So maybe they do line up something in the Bible to the negative, ending with the foolishness of denying Him. But I make no such claim as fact.

But, yes, The Seven Things of human cognition do in fact correspond with the six declarations of existence and origin declared in the Bible with God, number 7, backing it all up in summary, declaring what He has revealed about His creation and about Himself in His creation is good.

In short:

1. You exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. I'm the Creator.
4. I'm great.
5. You must embrace Me via faith.
6. You cannot rationally deny My Existence. I AM!
7. These things are true and good.

There are only six and the one summary regarding the issues of existence and origin throughout the Bible and in our minds!

"The Seven Bindingly Stupid Incoherent Whether or Knots"

I'm afraid this is nothing more than cheap proselytizing. Your newly revised "seven pointless things" is simply another version of your earlier failed "five pointless things"

What's remarkable is that you just stole the claims of earlier religions which made similar grandiose claims.

To the back of the line you go with your used, second hand gawds.

 

[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.

Theists are stupid. Great argument, have you got any paradoxes to go with that?

Yeah,. I saw that latter while scrolling down. Too late, past 90 minutes.

Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.

In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.

 

[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.

Theists are stupid. Great argument, have you got any paradoxes to go with that?

That was not my argument. Could it be you're too stupid read what is written and offer a coherent response?

 

[Boss]

Hey, Boss! As for BreezeWood's religion, I've been able to piece it together a bit at a time. He's definitely into some form of pantheism with some Christian ideas sprinkled over it. He also has a very interesting idea about the problem of evil that's not too far off the mark, really, but it's hard to tell for sure what's going on there for obvious reasons. If only he'd write coherent posts!

Oh, he makes some good points sometimes, when you can decipher his posts. He believes that all living things have a spiritual connection to "The Almighty" and it's not exclusive to humans. I don't see the evidence but by golly he does post some pretty flower pictures. And hey... maybe he's right, maybe other living things have spirituality and we don't know it? I happen to think our unique connection to something spiritual is what distinguishes us from all other living things.

I get a sort of Buddhist vibe there or maybe Hindu? He definitely has a distaste for the God of Abraham, even though he quotes 2Peter very astutely.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Actually, these are tautologies, seemingly true, though, in Newton's case, subject to empirical verification, by definition or necessity in formal logic.

Circular reasoning or begging the question are informal logical fallacies that sometimes lead to false conclusions, but not for well-founded rational objects, but typically for empirical objects. So GT's objection isn't even in the same ballpark. We distinguish between informal and formal fallacies because if we did not we wipe out virtually every a priori axiom we necessarily need to do any practical. GT's objective is just silly and meaningless, really.

The antagonist, a finite mind, necessarily assumes the mantle of a creature and contradicts himself when he says/thinks that God the Creator, by definition, doesn't exist. Or you can look at this way: he necessarily contradicts himself when he asserts that anything can exist without God the Creator. How could that be? No Creator, nothing exists. Either way of looking at it, the assertion is inherently self-negating and positively proves the opposite. This axiom is intuitively true by definition and necessity on the very face of it. We simply do not apply the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question to such intuitions in formal logic because they are logically and inescapably true axioms, anyway you shake a stick at them. But most importantly, we cannot do without such axiomatic intuitions in science either.

GT's labeling of the God axiom as such is nothing but an arbitrary bias against theism, sheer fanaticism.

Your arguments for some imagined creator are boilerplate, unoriginal and just parrot the droning scripts of any of the extremist christian ministries.

Making scripted excuses for your viciously circular arguments doesn't relieve them of the failure to be be convincing or even readable. Your extremist religious views grant you no exceptions from your phony arguments being exposed as fraud.

 

[Boss]

Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.

In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.

In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.

If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.

Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.

In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.

In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.

If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.

Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.

As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.

Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.

You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.

To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.