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

[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.

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.

In the place of "sillybooboo" insert "SillyHolliebooboo":

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.

 

[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.

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.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

 

[amrchaos]

I keep thinking that these 7 things need some cleaning up.

For instance, 1 "We exist", invites a Solipsists into the discussion. Personally, I do not wish to deal with solipsistic arguments.

However,
1*) You exist.
Is acceptable (in terms by what is meant by "you") to a Solipsists.


Question--are there more than one versions of the 7 things. I think the one responded to by Hollie has a different 2) than the one I remember..

 

[sealybobo]

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.

A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an ‘unseen actor’) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent.

Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.

 

[sealybobo]

“Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car – and no one will let you drive.”

 

[sealybobo]

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.

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

 

[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.

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.

In the place of "sillybooboo" insert "SillyHolliebooboo":

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.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didn’t he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?

“If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.” – Anonymous

 

[sealybobo]

Why would a perfect potter create an imperfect mold, order it to be perfect and then judge it based on the imperfections he gave it?

 

[Justin Davis]

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No. You shift a matter that can only be decided by logic and foolishly claim that science is the standard for something that science can have no opinion about. You are a pseudoscientific hack.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I keep thinking that these 7 things need some cleaning up.

For instance, 1 "We exist", invites a Solipsists into the discussion. Personally, I do not wish to deal with solipsistic arguments.

However,
1*) You exist.
Is acceptable (in terms by what is meant by "you") to a Solipsists.


Question--are there more than one versions of the 7 things. I think the one responded to by Hollie has a different 2) than the one I remember..

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

The other versions are failures, attempts to overthrow the objective realities of the real seven . . . as, of course, they assume #1 and #2 and then attempt to do what can't be done, i.e., negate the other five of the real McCoy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So let's review:

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #1

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


sealybobo said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the essence for all this injudicious weirdness?

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

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

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

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

Answer: Never!

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

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

Answer: Never!

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

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

Really?

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

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

Really?

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

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

Ah! I've got it!

No such grand theory exists.

Crickets chirping

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

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

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

Yawn

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

That's weird.

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

That's not only weird, but magical.

Hocus Pocus.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sealybobo]

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No. You shift a matter that can only be decided by logic and foolishly claim that science is the standard for something that science can have no opinion about. You are a pseudoscientific hack.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

 

[sealybobo]

So let's review:

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #1

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


sealybobo said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the essence for all this injudicious weirdness?

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

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

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

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

Answer: Never!

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

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

Answer: Never!

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

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

Really?

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

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

Really?

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

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

Ah! I've got it!

No such grand theory exists.

Crickets chirping

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

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

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

Yawn

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

That's weird.

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

That's not only weird, but magical.

Hocus Pocus.

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

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

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

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

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

Things can exist in different contexts: God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.
Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Before we go to Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not, let's review:

The Seven Things are LOGICALLY true! There's no if about that! That's a FACT (Also see Post #3557: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 356 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum).

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 no such assertion among them or anywhere else in sight!

You're imagining something that is not there, just like sealybobo imagines that his metaphysics are an actuality in science. Duh! So such theories exist. Duh! No such things have ever been observed or shown to be possible. Duh! The notions that the physical laws of nature coupled with the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents produce things above the level of basic infrastructure are hypotheses. Duh!

They are yet to be demonstrated or verified hypotheses. Duh! Hypotheses! Guesses! Duh! They are based on the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, which presupposes that the material world is all that exists and/or on the assumption of methodological naturalism that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. Duh!

Talk about begging the question. Duh! That's an instance of begging the question proper when asserted as a done deal or an actual fact. Duh!

Snap out of it!

Notwithstanding, back to The Seven Things, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.

That is also logically true!

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

Word.

 

[Hollie]

Before we go to Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not, let's review:

The Seven Things are LOGICALLY true! There's no if about that! That's a FACT (Also see Post #3557: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 356 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum).

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 no such assertion among them or anywhere else in sight!

You're imagining something that is not there, just like sealybobo imagines that his metaphysics are an actuality in science. Duh! So such theories exist. Duh! No such things have ever been observed or shown to be possible. Duh! The notions that the physical laws of nature coupled with the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents produce things above the level of basic infrastructure are hypotheses. Duh!

They are yet to be demonstrated or verified hypotheses. Duh! Hypotheses! Guesses! Duh! They are based on the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, which presupposes that the material world is all that exists and/or on the assumption of methodological naturalism that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. Duh!

Talk about begging the question. Duh! That's an instance of begging the question proper when asserted as a done deal or an actual fact. Duh!

Snap out of it!

Notwithstanding, back to The Seven Things, 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.

In other words, M. Pompous Rawling is so completely befuddled, he's reduced to spamming.

No word can describe his incompetence.

 

[sealybobo]

Before we go to Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not, let's review:

The Seven Things are LOGICALLY true! There's no if about that! That's a FACT (Also see Post #3557: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 356 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum).

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 no such assertion among them or anywhere else in sight!

You're imagining something that is not there, just like sealybobo imagines that his metaphysics are an actuality in science. Duh! So such theories exist. Duh! No such things have ever been observed or shown to be possible. Duh! The notions that the physical laws of nature coupled with the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents produce things above the level of basic infrastructure are hypotheses. Duh!

They are yet to be demonstrated or verified hypotheses. Duh! Hypotheses! Guesses! Duh! They are based on the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, which presupposes that the material world is all that exists and/or on the assumption of methodological naturalism that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. Duh!

Talk about begging the question. Duh! That's an instance of begging the question proper when asserted as a done deal or an actual fact. Duh!

Snap out of it!

Notwithstanding, back to The Seven Things, 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.

Now I get it. You aren't saying god exists. I realized this when you said "whether God actually exists or not"

So sure. If god exists, he would be great. And he exists in your mind. Great! What else you got?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #2

Continued from Post #3592: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087257/.

2. The universe had a start - what caused it?

We don’t know. We can ask science but if science can’t tell us all we can do is guess.

Here you concede that you exist and that the universe exists. You know that either a material substance has always existed or an immaterial divinity has always existed and created the material substance that has existed ever since, unless of course you're arguing that from nothing, something comes. That's weird. In which case, from absurdities, more absurdities come. That’s weird.

(See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/)

These are the choices. We know what the choices are. These are not guesses. That's weird. These are the only logical alternatives by necessity.

As you have conceded that #1 and #2 are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of The Seven Things are logically true, including #6 in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. That's weird.

So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace all of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, (1) the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or (2) stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.

You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. That's weird.

 

[The Irish Ram]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

bobo, tell Epicurus God said, "When the time is right." And, "Where were you Epicurus when I was creating the universe......"

 

[Hollie]

Before we go to Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not, let's review:

The Seven Things are LOGICALLY true! There's no if about that! That's a FACT (Also see Post #3557: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 356 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum).

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 no such assertion among them or anywhere else in sight!

You're imagining something that is not there, just like sealybobo imagines that his metaphysics are an actuality in science. Duh! So such theories exist. Duh! No such things have ever been observed or shown to be possible. Duh! The notions that the physical laws of nature coupled with the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents produce things above the level of basic infrastructure are hypotheses. Duh!

They are yet to be demonstrated or verified hypotheses. Duh! Hypotheses! Guesses! Duh! They are based on the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, which presupposes that the material world is all that exists and/or on the assumption of methodological naturalism that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. Duh!

Talk about begging the question. Duh! That's an instance of begging the question proper when asserted as a done deal or an actual fact. Duh!

Snap out of it!

Notwithstanding, back to The Seven Things, 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.

Now I get it. You aren't saying god exists. I realized this when you said "whether God actually exists or not"

So sure. If god exists, he would be great. And he exists in your mind. Great! What else you got?

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #2

Continued from Post #3592 http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087257/.

2. The universe had a start - what caused it?

We don’t know. We can ask science but if science can’t tell us all we can do is guess.

Here you concede that you exist and that the universe exists. You know that either a material substance has always existed or an immaterial divinity has always existed and created the material substance that has existed ever since, unless of course you're arguing that from nothing, something comes. That's weird. In which case, from absurdities, more absurdities come. That’s weird.

(See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/)

These are the choices. We know what the choices are. These are not guesses. That's weird. These are the only logical alternatives by necessity.

As you have conceded that #1 and #2 are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of The Seven Things are logically true, including #6 in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. That's weird.

So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace all of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, (1) the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or (2) stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.

You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. That's weird.

Sheesh. Such are the dangers of religious fanaticism.

Here we have another example of the confused and twisted ramblings that occur when the simple minded can't separate their fundamentalist beliefs from a rational argument.

That's more typical than weird.