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

[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.

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.

Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.

 

[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.

Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.

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.

Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.

You really fumbled the ball on that one. To not understand that humans actually are a species being studied by biologists calls into question your ability to operate in the rational world.

As is typical for religious zealots, your shrill screeching about "There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic" is more parroting of Christian fundamentalist dogma. I understand that you are aware that such claims are unsupportable which makes your insistence that they are true more comically tragic.

And yes, your imagined spirit realms managed by magical gawds are no more true than the claims of Marshall Applewhite and his claims to nonsense. It's only a matter of luck that separates you from the Marshall Applewhite cult.

What's comical is your "95% of humanity" dogma wherein you hope to drag most of humanity into imagined world of spirit realms and magical gawds. Give it a rest, Bunky. Go down to Kingdom Hall, gather the rest of your JW cabal and annoy people in their homes on their weekends.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.
Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

 

[sealybobo]

Who is telling me "I AM"

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

Do you see the difference here?

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

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

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

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


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

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

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

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

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

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

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

The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


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

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


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

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

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

The 7 "things" are not all true. They are debatable. And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists. If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't. Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.

 

[Boss]

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid...

Are you sniffing glue this morning, silly boob?

All cups are green. (not logical, not valid)
Socrates is a cup. (not logical, not valid)
Therefore, Socrates is green. (still not logical or valid.)

Silly boob is not logical.
Silly boob is not valid.
Therefore, silly boob is not logically valid.

 

[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.

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.

Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.

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.

Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.

You really fumbled the ball on that one. To not understand that humans actually are a species being studied by biologists calls into question your ability to operate in the rational world.

As is typical for religious zealots, your shrill screeching about "There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic" is more parroting of Christian fundamentalist dogma. I understand that you are aware that such claims are unsupportable which makes your insistence that they are true more comically tragic.

And yes, your imagined spirit realms managed by magical gawds are no more true than the claims of Marshall Applewhite and his claims to nonsense. It's only a matter of luck that separates you from the Marshall Applewhite cult.

What's comical is your "95% of humanity" dogma wherein you hope to drag most of humanity into imagined world of spirit realms and magical gawds. Give it a rest, Bunky. Go down to Kingdom Hall, gather the rest of your JW cabal and annoy people in their homes on their weekends.

*Yawn* More of the same... lack of an argument, denigrate Christians, be a smart ass, log off.

Scientists who study the human species are ANTHROPOLOGISTS!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

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

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

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


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

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

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

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

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

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

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

The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


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

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


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

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

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

The 7 "things" are not all true. They are debatable. And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists. If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't. Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.

They are LOGICALLY true, dummy! There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

There is only ONE logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, #6.

It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, LOGICALLY. There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities outside the logic of our minds is debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true inside our minds is not debatable!

You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them! Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.

That is also logically true!

Those are the logical choices. Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.

Word.

 

[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.

Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.

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.

Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.

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.

Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.

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.

Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.

You really fumbled the ball on that one. To not understand that humans actually are a species being studied by biologists calls into question your ability to operate in the rational world.

As is typical for religious zealots, your shrill screeching about "There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic" is more parroting of Christian fundamentalist dogma. I understand that you are aware that such claims are unsupportable which makes your insistence that they are true more comically tragic.

And yes, your imagined spirit realms managed by magical gawds are no more true than the claims of Marshall Applewhite and his claims to nonsense. It's only a matter of luck that separates you from the Marshall Applewhite cult.

What's comical is your "95% of humanity" dogma wherein you hope to drag most of humanity into imagined world of spirit realms and magical gawds. Give it a rest, Bunky. Go down to Kingdom Hall, gather the rest of your JW cabal and annoy people in their homes on their weekends.

*Yawn* More of the same... lack of an argument, denigrate Christians, be a smart ass, log off.

Scientists who study the human species are ANTHROPOLOGISTS!

It's interesting how quickly the spirit realm'ists abandon their arguments when they're called out to support those magical realms.

Did you really not understand that the study of human biology is sometimes called medical science?

 

[amrchaos]

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.

I disagree with this statement. First, let me make a statement that most of my fellow atheists will give me hell for--RELIGION IS USEFUL

It does teaches a foundations for ethics and help develop our intuition for "right" and "wrong". This is fundamental for developing societies!!(there are other things I could talk about but this point, by itself. suggest why something like religion is needed)

The problem is that some of these religions take their "authority" from a god. A God that has had so many things added to it over the years. that it becomes impossible for some of us to recognize it as real!! So when some challenges this notion of God, the assumption that the religion, and the benefits it does provide, is being attacked.

Also, there does not seem to be anything atheism provides that can replace what religion does. To "do away with my GOD" is seen as to "Do away with the religion" From this viewpoint, it is understandable why some will try to prove the existence of God and treat disbelievers with hostility. No, the concept of "GOD" can not go away until there is a "new" religion that does provides many of the things the old religion provides and have a firm and acceptable basis to support it

Agnosticism/Atheism does not provide this. I have heard some of the things suggested in how humans should think and behave and it makes my skin crawl!! However, there are non-theist and "unconventional" theists that recognize this problem and are trying to resolve it.

 

[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.

I disagree with this statement. First, let me make a statement that most of my fellow atheists will give me hell for--RELIGION IS USEFUL

It does teaches a foundations for ethics and help develop our intuition for "right" and "wrong". This is fundamental for developing societies!!(there are other things I could talk about but this point, by itself. suggest why something like religion is needed)

The problem is that some of these religions take their "authority" from a god. A God that has had so many things added to it over the years. that it becomes impossible for some of us to recognize it as real!! So when some challenges this notion of God, the assumption that the religion, and the benefits it does provide, is being attacked.

Also, there does not seem to be anything atheism provides that can replace what religion does. To "do away with my GOD" is seen as to "Do away with the religion" From this viewpoint, it is understandable why some will try to prove the existence of God and treat disbelievers with hostility. No, the concept of "GOD" can not go away until there is a "new" religion that does provides many of the things the old religion provides and have a firm and acceptable basis to support it

Agnosticism/Atheism does not provide this. I have heard some of the things suggested in how humans should think and behave and it makes my skin crawl!! However, there are non-theist and "unconventional" theists that recognize this problem and are trying to resolve it.

Okay, well at least you recognize spirituality is useful and man gains benefit from it. This, in of itself, should make it clear that we didn't just invent it out of wild imagination. What an amazing fluke stroke of luck that would be, that we just happened to dream up something so fundamentally important to man. And if it's simply a product of imagination, that means it wouldn't have substantial value to man because it's not real. Imagine you're a millionaire, then go check your bank account and see how well that worked for you.

Now... Religion? what type of God exists? Those are questions others can ponder, I don't advocate for any particular incarnation of God. I think man is fallible and incapable of fully comprehending God. We create all kinds of incarnations to believe in, we always have. What's the "real deal" is our human spiritual connection. We didn't dream that up, it has always existed in man and always will. This is where Rawlings is making an excellent argument.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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


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

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

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

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

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

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

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

The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


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

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


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

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

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

The 7 "things" are not all true. They are debatable. And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists. If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't. Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.

They are LOGICALLY true, dummy! There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

There is only ONE logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, #6.

It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, LOGICALLY. There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities outside the logic of our minds is debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true inside our minds is not debatable!

You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them! Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.

That is also logically true!

Those are the logical choices. Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.

Word.

 

[sealybobo]

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

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

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


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

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

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

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

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

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

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

The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


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

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


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

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

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

The 7 "things" are not all true. They are debatable. And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists. If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't. Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.

They are LOGICALLY true, dummy! There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

There is only ONE logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, #6.

It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, LOGICALLY. There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities outside the logic of our minds is debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true inside our minds is not debatable!

You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them! Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.

That is also logically true!

Those are the logical choices. Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.

Word.

Maybe inside your mind. P.S. How does god feel about you calling me a dummy? Not nice. LOL. You'll burn in hell!

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I disagree with this statement. First, let me make a statement that most of my fellow atheists will give me hell for--RELIGION IS USEFUL

It does teaches a foundations for ethics and help develop our intuition for "right" and "wrong". This is fundamental for developing societies!!(there are other things I could talk about but this point, by itself. suggest why something like religion is needed)

The problem is that some of these religions take their "authority" from a god. A God that has had so many things added to it over the years. that it becomes impossible for some of us to recognize it as real!! So when some challenges this notion of God, the assumption that the religion, and the benefits it does provide, is being attacked.

Also, there does not seem to be anything atheism provides that can replace what religion does. To "do away with my GOD" is seen as to "Do away with the religion" From this viewpoint, it is understandable why some will try to prove the existence of God and treat disbelievers with hostility. No, the concept of "GOD" can not go away until there is a "new" religion that does provides many of the things the old religion provides and have a firm and acceptable basis to support it

Agnosticism/Atheism does not provide this. I have heard some of the things suggested in how humans should think and behave and it makes my skin crawl!! However, there are non-theist and "unconventional" theists that recognize this problem and are trying to resolve it.

Okay, well at least you recognize spirituality is useful and man gains benefit from it. This, in of itself, should make it clear that we didn't just invent it out of wild imagination. What an amazing fluke stroke of luck that would be, that we just happened to dream up something so fundamentally important to man. And if it's simply a product of imagination, that means it wouldn't have substantial value to man because it's not real. Imagine you're a millionaire, then go check your bank account and see how well that worked for you.

Now... Religion? what type of God exists? Those are questions others can ponder, I don't advocate for any particular incarnation of God. I think man is fallible and incapable of fully comprehending God. We create all kinds of incarnations to believe in, we always have. What's the "real deal" is our human spiritual connection. We didn't dream that up, it has always existed in man and always will. This is where Rawlings is making an excellent argument.

Wrong again. Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true. Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?

And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.

 

[sealybobo]

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


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

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

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

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

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

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

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

The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


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

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


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

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

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

The 7 "things" are not all true. They are debatable. And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists. If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't. Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.

They are LOGICALLY true, dummy! There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

There is only ONE logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, #6.

It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, LOGICALLY. There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities outside the logic of our minds is debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true inside our minds is not debatable!

You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them! Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.

That is also logically true!

Those are the logical choices. Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.

Word.

Whatever you were going to say, I agree. LOL.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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


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

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

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

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

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

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

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

The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


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

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


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

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

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

The 7 "things" are not all true. They are debatable. And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists. If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't. Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.

They are LOGICALLY true, dummy! There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

There is only ONE logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, #6.

It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, LOGICALLY. There's no if about that! That's a FACT.

The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities outside the logic of our minds is debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true inside our minds is not debatable!

You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them! Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.

That is also logically true!

Those are the logical choices. Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.

Word.

Sorry, you pretentious fraud. Your phony seven things is not saved by your goofy posts replete with gargantuan text. In addition, you're still confused by the use of "logic" as a means to promote your laughably inept philosophical pwoofs of your polytheistic gawds.

I have thoroughly discredited your pointless and amateurish arguments for the seven phony things.

Go drink the Kool Aid.


The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


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

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


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

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

 

[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.

I disagree with this statement. First, let me make a statement that most of my fellow atheists will give me hell for--RELIGION IS USEFUL

It does teaches a foundations for ethics and help develop our intuition for "right" and "wrong". This is fundamental for developing societies!!(there are other things I could talk about but this point, by itself. suggest why something like religion is needed)

The problem is that some of these religions take their "authority" from a god. A God that has had so many things added to it over the years. that it becomes impossible for some of us to recognize it as real!! So when some challenges this notion of God, the assumption that the religion, and the benefits it does provide, is being attacked.

Also, there does not seem to be anything atheism provides that can replace what religion does. To "do away with my GOD" is seen as to "Do away with the religion" From this viewpoint, it is understandable why some will try to prove the existence of God and treat disbelievers with hostility. No, the concept of "GOD" can not go away until there is a "new" religion that does provides many of the things the old religion provides and have a firm and acceptable basis to support it

Agnosticism/Atheism does not provide this. I have heard some of the things suggested in how humans should think and behave and it makes my skin crawl!! However, there are non-theist and "unconventional" theists that recognize this problem and are trying to resolve it.

Okay, well at least you recognize spirituality is useful and man gains benefit from it. This, in of itself, should make it clear that we didn't just invent it out of wild imagination. What an amazing fluke stroke of luck that would be, that we just happened to dream up something so fundamentally important to man. And if it's simply a product of imagination, that means it wouldn't have substantial value to man because it's not real. Imagine you're a millionaire, then go check your bank account and see how well that worked for you.

Now... Religion? what type of God exists? Those are questions others can ponder, I don't advocate for any particular incarnation of God. I think man is fallible and incapable of fully comprehending God. We create all kinds of incarnations to believe in, we always have. What's the "real deal" is our human spiritual connection. We didn't dream that up, it has always existed in man and always will. This is where Rawlings is making an excellent argument.

To the contrary, you agree that your inventions of spirit realms and various gawds you believe inhabit those spirit realms are unsupportable outside of your invention of them. And yes, I can agree that man has created all kinds of incarnations of gawds to placate his fears and superstitions, just as you have.

There is nothing that separates your gawds and spirit realms from any of the other gawds and spirit realms that preceded yours.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss: I edited the following to make it clear, as it was fuzzy, like my head last night. I was a little sleepy last night when I posted "Sealybobo's weird things" and the posts after that. Sorry for any confusion. This makes all points clear.


Repost:

Actually, these are rhetorical tautologies or intuitions, axiomatically true by definition or seemingly true by necessity in formal logic. The latter, scientific intuitions, such as Newton's, are, of course, subject to empirical verification, as sometimes the latter are not true due to the faulty correlations of insufficient data; and as we know, Newtonian physics has been partially falsified, as it does not hold up universally. Still, Newton's brilliance and the fact that he advanced our understanding of things cannot be denied. But you know these things about the history of theoretical physics.

Circular reasoning or begging the question are informal logical fallacies that can lead to false conclusions, but not from well-founded premises for rational objects, but from the premises of faulty correlation 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'd wipe out virtually every a priori axiom necessary to do anything 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 it this way: he necessarily contradicts himself when he asserts that anything can exist without God the Creator existing. How could that be? No Creator, nothing exists.

This axiom is intuitively true by definition and necessity on the very face of it. Either way you look at it, the negative assertion is inherently self-negating and positively proves the opposite. The problem regarding God's existence in terms of ultimacy is an entirely different issue, which is what these idiots can't get into their heads, apparently, i.e., this distinction!

IDIOTS!

We simply do not apply the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question to such intuitions in formal logic because they are inescapably true, logically, anyway you shake a stick at them, and we cannot do anything in logic or science without foundational, axiomatic intuitions.

GT's labeling of "the God axiom" as an informal logical fallacy is nothing but an arbitrary bias against theism, sheer fanaticism. But as you observe, essentially, a rose is a rose. This axiom stands regardless of what fallacious label one puts on it. The reality of it, the incontrovertible fact of its logical necessity, stands and does in fact have profound implications.​

 

[MrDVS1]

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?[/QUOTE]

 

[Hollie]

Boss: I edited the following to make it clear, as it was fuzzy, like my head last night. I was a little sleepy last night when I posted "Sealybobo's weird things" and the posts after that. Sorry for any confusion. This makes all points clear.


Repost:

Actually, these are rhetorical tautologies or intuitions, axiomatically true by definition or seemingly true by necessity in formal logic. The latter, scientific intuitions, such as Newton's, are, of course, subject to empirical verification, as sometimes the latter are not true due to the faulty correlations of insufficient data; and as we know, Newtonian physics has been partially falsified, as it does not hold up universally. Still, Newton's brilliance and the fact that he advanced our understanding of things cannot be denied. But you know these things about the history of theoretical physics.

Circular reasoning or begging the question are informal logical fallacies that can lead to false conclusions, but not from well-founded premises for rational objects, but from the premises of faulty correlation 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'd wipe out virtually every a priori axiom necessary to do anything 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 it this way: he necessarily contradicts himself when he asserts that anything can exist without God the Creator existing. How could that be? No Creator, nothing exists.

This axiom is intuitively true by definition and necessity on the very face of it. Either way you look at it, the negative assertion is inherently self-negating and positively proves the opposite. The question of ultimacy is an entirely different issue, which is what these idiots can't get into their heads, apparently, i.e., this distinction!

IDIOTS!

We simply do not apply the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question to such intuitions in formal logic because they are inescapably true, anyway you shake a stick at them, and we cannot do anything in logic or science without foundational, axiomatic intuitions.

GT's labeling of the God axiom as an informal logical fallacy is nothing but an arbitrary bias against theism, sheer fanaticism. But as you observe, essentially, a rose is a rose. This axiom stands regardless of what fallacious label one puts on it. The reality of it, the incontrovertible fact of its logical necessity, stands and does in fact have profound implications.​

Actually, you angry, self-hating crank, your foul smelling arguments truly are the definition of self-refuting, viciously circular and pointless confusion regarding philosophical musings as opposed to objective reality.

 

[MrDVS1]

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?

All Jesus represents to me is a major BS story, you can keep the interpretations aka spin. Just maybe people should pay more attention to what goes on, on the physical plane, the here and now instead of some mythological higher level.

Religions are just a means to control people and a barometer as to their intellectual level.