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

[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.

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.

Why even have point number 1? We exist? Is #1 even necessary?

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5. Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

But he's a human knower/thinker.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

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

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

Yes. All of these things, including the apparent influences of Buddhism and Hinduism have been noted by me. As for his aversion for the God of Abraham: yeah, I duly noted that too, but I don't have the first clue why he's so down on it. LOL!

As for animals, I certainly don't buy behaviorism or materialism, and both have been essentially falsified anyway, at least in terms of the conscious whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, some are still debating that, but the influences of absolute behaviorism or materialism have faded. Certainly this is true regarding the attempt to put this on humans in an absolute sense. Most folks just don't buy that anymore, that which no damn egg head in college was ever going to convince me to believe, and I told some of the arrogant so and sos just so. You know what condescending types I'm talking about, especially those in the heyday of the behaviorist movement in psychology. Well, it is they who are on the outs now and for good reason. They were full it from the beginning.

Does this mean that animals have spirits or souls? Well, only God would know, so we have to go to scripture, and then we have the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth.

According to the Bible, animals do have souls; i.e., they are living souls. But this goes to the life in their bodies, the life giving force of divine animation for the complex biological systems comprised of and derived from the material substances of the universe: living cells/bodies. This applies to all living things, including humans. But the Bible is silent on whether or not the lower-order animals have immortal souls like humans. The Bible simply doesn't tell us whether they do or they don't, which would seem to suggest that they don't. Certainly, God does not put His name on them in terms of the laws of rational and moral thought, the principle of identity, according to the Bible or call them to the same order of spiritual communion. But we do know they can communicate, share information with other members of the same species, and of course the more intelligent among them, cetaceans and primates, can be taught to communicate with us at a fairly sophisticated level.

Other mammals, like dogs, communicate with us at a lower level.

Certainly mammals think and communicate and have emotions at a level akin to ours, though obviously not at our height of it.

And then I think some animals that are not mammals, like snakes and alligators and sharks, are just dumb eating machines, instinctively hardwired for survival and propagation. Essentially, sociopaths sans any intellectual capacity beyond these programmed drives, with the signals they give to other members of their species being the blips of on-or-off switches. ON: survive. OFF: threat. LOL! I don’t know.

On the other hand, what would stop God from fulfilling one's desire to have a beloved pet with one in heaven, reconstituted with a spiritual body and the memory of the previous relationship?

Christians have asked that question, wondered about it, as have I. I've even asked God if my dog Stanley could be with the family in heaven. He didn't rebuke me, so I think it's okay to ask. There's nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of that holds such an event to be an impossibility, i.e., to be a violation of any spiritual or moral law.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Why even have point number 1? We exist? Is #1 even necessary?

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5. Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.

Of course #1 and #2 are necessary. They established the foundation for #3 and #4 and #5 and #6 and #7. Moreover, #1 and #2 carry the qualificatiom of being the pragmatic assumptions for the first principles of existence, dummy. Anymore stupid questions? Are making any headway on my annihilation of your #1 of your six weird things? Oh, and why do you misstate #5 of the not weird and perfectly coherent Seven Things? To evade the truth again? Yeah. That's why.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

 

[Boss]

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5. Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.

Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?

Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God. Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Why even have point number 1? We exist? Is #1 even necessary?

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5. Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.

Of course #1 and #2 are necessary. They established the foundation for #3 and #4 and #5 and #6 and #7. Moreover, #1 and #2 carry the qualificatiom of being the pragmatic assumptions for the first principles of existence, dummy. Anymore stupid questions? Are making any headway on my annihilation of your #1 of your six weird things? Oh, and why do you misstate #5 of the not weird and perfectly coherent Seven Things? To evade the truth again? Yeah. That's why.

In terms of maintaining the fraud of your seven pointless things, all of the seven pointless, viciously circular items are required to maintain the fraud.

 

[sealybobo]

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5. Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.

Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?

Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God. Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.

Wait a minute. YOU believe in god because he exists in your mind. So god is real because you believe it to be real. So why can't anything and everything I believe be true too? Since I thunk it, it must be true. People have always doubted god existed too just like some people have always believed. So your theory is way off. Sorry. Your only argument here is that more people believe than don't. So what?

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

Implicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it"

 

[sealybobo]

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5. Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.

Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?

Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God. Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.

And funny I have to give you proof but you don't have to give any proof your god exists. Doesn't seem fair boss.

 

[Justin Davis]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not

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

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

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

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

For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing. These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one. But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue. It's like what is he thinking? Universe always existing in same way or God? The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option. Is anybody home? The rest follow.

 

[The Irish Ram]

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.

Too funny. Thank you Justin.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well, silly boob... if there were anything to a rabbit's foot, we'd see 95% of the species carrying one around. We'd look back in human history and see that 95% of the species had always carried a rabbit's foot around.

 

[Hollie]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not

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

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

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

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

For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing. These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one. But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue. It's like what is he thinking? Universe always existing in same way or God? The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option. Is anybody home? The rest follow.

For me, the weirdest thing is that your pretense at thinking is such an abysmal failure.

Knucklehead wrote: "These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic...."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not

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

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

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

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

For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing. These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one. But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue. It's like what is he thinking? Universe always existing in same way or God? The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option. Is anybody home? The rest follow.

Oh, somebody's home, but they haven't paid the light bill in months and they think you might be the collector. So all you get is, "Nuh huh."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Why even have point number 1? We exist? Is #1 even necessary?

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5. Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.

Of course #1 and #2 are necessary. They established the foundation for #3 and #4 and #5 and #6 and #7. Moreover, #1 and #2 carry the qualificatiom of being the pragmatic assumptions for the first principles of existence, dummy. Anymore stupid questions? Are making any headway on my annihilation of your #1 of your six weird things? Oh, and why do you misstate #5 of the not weird and perfectly coherent Seven Things? To evade the truth again? Yeah. That's why.

In terms of maintaining the fraud of your seven pointless things, all of the seven pointless, viciously circular items are required to maintain the fraud.

Nuh huh.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Too funny. Thank you Justin.

Beware the evil. Flee from it. Just saying.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Too funny. Thank you Justin.

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.

Why even have point number 1? We exist? Is #1 even necessary?

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5. Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.

Of course #1 and #2 are necessary. They established the foundation for #3 and #4 and #5 and #6 and #7. Moreover, #1 and #2 carry the qualificatiom of being the pragmatic assumptions for the first principles of existence, dummy. Anymore stupid questions? Are making any headway on my annihilation of your #1 of your six weird things? Oh, and why do you misstate #5 of the not weird and perfectly coherent Seven Things? To evade the truth again? Yeah. That's why.

In terms of maintaining the fraud of your seven pointless things, all of the seven pointless, viciously circular items are required to maintain the fraud.

Nuh huh.

Thoroughly refuting your nonsensical seven pointless things has left you to stutter and mumble.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not

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

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

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

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

For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing. These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one. But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue. It's like what is he thinking? Universe always existing in same way or God? The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option. Is anybody home? The rest follow.

What atheist believes the world has always existed in the same way? Did you mean theists? Because most atheists believe our universe was empty black dark nothingness and then the big bang happened. For billions of years all that existed was gas pockets everywhere. Billions or trillions of them. Those gases eventually became suns/stars and also planets and moons and meteors and comets. Another few billion years and life took hold on this planet. For millions of years dinosaurs ruled. Only 200,000 years ago did humans happen.

Science has shown that something can come from nothing. And even SOMETHING created all this, why does it have to be a god? And are we talking about a generic unknown creator or the god who talks to us and made heaven for us?

 

[Hollie]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not

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

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

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

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

For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing. These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one. But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue. It's like what is he thinking? Universe always existing in same way or God? The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option. Is anybody home? The rest follow.

Oh, somebody's home, but they haven't paid the light bill in months and they think you might be the collector. So all you get is, "Nuh huh."

I understand your feelings are hurt. Your frantic efforts at proselytizing
have been a failure. Your attempt to foist the bogus seven pointless things as a viable argument had also been a disaster. Having a predefined conclusion that the extremist x-tian belief system is true and then employing utterly pointless and viciously arguments along with the specious opinions of others with a similar bias as proof of your opinions is hardly a sustainable argument. In fact, it is viciously contradictory and self refuting. Therefore, the effort necessary to proffer a self refuting argument is revealed as an unadulterated waste of time. You wannabe Jehovah's Witness groupies using the Bibles to prove X-tian'ism (the Various bibles not being subject to external verification), to prove that Witness ideology is true remains a total fraud.

 

[Justin Davis]

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5. Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.

Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?

Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God. Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.

And funny I have to give you proof but you don't have to give any proof your god exists. Doesn't seem fair boss.

No proof he says. Nuh huh. That's the new catch phrase and pictures of evil.

sillybooboo exists.
The universe exists.
The idea of God exists.
God would be the highest thing that exists, the Creator.
God would be perfect.
God would know everything about His creation.
God would be perfectly right in everything about His creaton.
Pseudoscience and crazy logic is sillybooboo's god.
sillybooboo's god makes no sense.
sillybooboos's god doesn't know everything about existence.
sillybooboo's god is always wrong about everything except that sillybooboo and existence exists.
sillybooboo's god is not perfect.
What doesn't make sense cannot be God.
What is wrong about almost everything cannot be God.
sillybooboo's god isn't God.
sillybooboo's god is himself.
sillybooboo can't logically say God the Creator doesn't exist.
God logically exists.
God must exist.
God exists.
sillybooboo says "Nuh huh"
God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness and says "I AM."
sillybooboo says "Nuh huh" again.
God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness again.
God is never wrong.
Therefore, sillybooboo is silly.