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

[Hollie]

“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......"

Fundie zealot, it may come as a shock to you but we have nothing to suggest that any of your gawds said anything to Epicurus or any other individual.

Why do you further these falsehoods?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!

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.

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.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

 

[Hollie]

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!

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.

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.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

The Seven Phony Things

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.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #3

Continued from Post #3592: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087417/.

Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.

3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why?

Maybe we don’t know.

Let's review:

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.​

Hence, the theist stands on a foundation of an incontrovertible, axiomatic proof in accordance with the laws of human thought, under the terms of organic/classical logic.

He consistently embraces all the axioms of organic logic, including the "God axiom," which is bullet proof. It objectively and universally holds true, logically! To assert that this is not a fact of human cognition is to lie. To acknowledge it and walk away is to embrace paradox. You have alternately lied or embraced paradox. That's your position, not the theist's, as you argue that the theist is being unreasonable. That's weird.

Hence, the theist justifiably asserts that God is the universal Principle of Identity, the very essence and the ground of all laws: the laws of logic, the laws of morality, the laws of natural rights, and the physical laws of nature.

You are well aware of the fact of the incontrovertible "God axiom" in organic/classical logic. You contradictorily choose to reject it. That's weird. You choose not to know/believe that it's perfectly rational to hold that God is the Law Giver. You want the other axioms of human cognition, but not that one, which is of the very same a priori nature as all the others. That's weird.

Hence, You don't know why the physical laws of nature hold universally. You don't believe what organic/classical logic tells you about Who is behind it all.

There is no we.

That's weird.

That which I believe to be true constitutes justified true belief/knowledge under the laws of organic/classical logic. That's not weird. That's a fact! That's the common sense of ontological and epistemological consistency, and my conviction is objectively and logically bullet proof, unlike your subjective mush and the pseudoscientific blather that comes with it.

MY position is logically rock solid. Your position is weird.

 

[amrchaos]

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?

 

[Hollie]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #3

Continued from Post #3592: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087417/.

Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.

3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why?

Maybe we don’t know.

Let's review:

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.​

Hence, the theist stands on a foundation of an incontrovertible, axiomatic proof in accordance with the laws of human thought, under the terms of organic/classical logic.

He consistently embraces all the axioms of organic logic, including the "God axiom," which is bullet proof. It objectively and universally holds true, logically! To assert that this is not a fact of human cognition is to lie. To acknowledge it and walk away is to embrace paradox. You have alternately lied or embraced paradox. That's your position, not the theist's, as you argue that the theist is being unreasonable. That's weird.

Hence, the theist justifiably asserts that God is the universal Principle of Identity, the very essence and the ground of all laws: the laws of logic, the laws of morality, the laws of natural rights, and the physical laws of nature.

You are well aware of the fact of the incontrovertible "God axiom" in organic/classical logic. You contradictorily choose to reject it. That's weird. You choose not to know/believe that it's perfectly rational to hold that God is the Law Giver. You want the other axioms of human cognition, but not that one, which is of the very same a priori nature as all the others. That's weird.

Hence, You don't know why the physical laws of nature hold universally. You don't believe what organic/classical logic tells you about Who is behind it all.

There is no we.

That's weird.

That which I believe to be true constitutes justified true belief/knowledge under the laws of organic/classical logic. That's not weird. That's a fact! That's the common sense of ontological and epistemological consistency, and my conviction is objectively and logically bullet proof, unlike your subjective mush and the pseudoscientific blather that comes with it.

MY position is logically rock solid. Your position is weird.

Oh my. The angry thumper is getting very desperate.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?

Already addressed that. God, by definition, is the Creator. To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #4

Continued from Post #3604: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087801/.
.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.

4. The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

Huh? Maybe you or boss can explain this one to me.

Whatever point you think you're making is as obscure as they come, but if you're under the impression that this whatever/whatnot is a that's what! supporting the atheist's position, that's weird!

In any event, everything you need to know about the matter as it pertains to the problems of existence and origin may be found right here on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.

Now that article is not a whatever/whatnot but a that's what! . . . so now what?

 

[amrchaos]

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?

Already addressed that. God, by definition, is the Creator. To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.

The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God. That is an assumption as well.

I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.

If you really wish to establish a definition. Try using
Henceforth, God is that which created everything.
(Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)

Now God can be a being(sentient)
OR God can be several Beings(sentient)
OR God can be an inanimate object
Or God can be an event
Or God can be any combination of things.

To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand. Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"

 

[G.T.]

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?

Already addressed that. God, by definition, is the Creator. To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.

Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.

Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #5

Continued from Post #3608: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087964/.

.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.

5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

No fool, we are constantly seeking him.

Well, this one's easy: there you go again presupposing God's existence as you claim to know something absolutely, as if from on high, about something that only God could know anything about, as you argue that God doesn't exist That's weird.

So you believe God exists after all, eh? I thought you said we couldn't know or rationally believe such a thing. That's weird.

You sure do keep jumping from one belief to another a lot, and that's, well, you know, weird.

It looks like you're trying to evade/escape something you can't. That's weird.

You didn't really believe that Hume knew what he was talking about, did you? That's weird. He didn't evade/escape the cognitive facts either. That's not weird. That's a fact!

 

[Hollie]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #5

Continued from Post #3608: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087964/.

.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.

5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

No fool, we are constantly seeking him.

Well, this one's easy: there you go again presupposing God's existence as you claim to know something absolutely, as if from on high, about something that only God could know anything about, as you argue that God doesn't exist That's weird.

So you believe God exists after all, eh? I thought you said we couldn't know or rationally believe such a thing. That's weird.

You sure do keep jumping from one belief to another a lot, and that's, well, you know, weird.

It looks like you're trying to evade/escape something you can't. That's weird.

You didn't really believe that Hume knew what he was talking about, did you? That's weird. He didn't evade/escape the cognitive facts either. That's not weird. That's a fact!

Umm, your seven things are not objectively true. The seven fraudulent things is a time wasting collection of unsupported assertion, bad analogy, false comparison and viciously circular reasoning.

 

[amrchaos]

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?

Already addressed that. God, by definition, is the Creator. To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.

Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.

Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.

You do have a point. Even if I try to use the definition I posted, I run into the problem of "Is god anything? If so, then what created God? Was it God?"

I don't think I want go down that line.

There has to be a better way to phrase the definition.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?

Already addressed that. God, by definition, is the Creator. To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.

Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.

Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.

That's weird.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Rawlings,

Is the 7 things some kind of Inductive proof?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #6 and #7

Continued from Post #3611: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10088062/.

.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.

6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.

We're supposed to believe an unbelievable fairy tale? WE GET NO PROOF? Notice how sure the author is of point 6? As if he saw it for himself? This is what makes Christians just as dumb as every other religion. Mormons, Islam, Greek Gods, Jehova. Maybe their story is the best one of them all but its still just made up yet this guy uses the Jesus story as proof a god exists. Show me a miracle god!

sealybobo's #6 is really a #6 and a #7, a redundancy in which he tells us that he doesn't believe that God exists, not once but twice, except, as I've shown, when he does tell us that God exists. That's weird.

(sealybobo, you really do need to make up your mind here, instead if jumping back and forth, because that's weird.)

However, this denial of God's existence is asserted against a specific theological system of thought, which is off topic. That's weird.

But I'll address it.

sealybobo says Jesus is not God. Is sealybobo claiming to be something akin to God again? Sure looks like it. That’s weird.

Now, I've already shown that sealybobo's position is irrational, logically contradictory and paradoxical, so we may understand why he denies God's existence in one instance and presupposes God's existence in the next. Try as he might, He can't escape the imperatives of the laws of thought.

I've shown that the only rational position to take is that God must be, that this conclusion is well-founded, formally justified under the conventional standards of logic. So the notion that God has in fact revealed Himself directly in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth is well within the range of all that is rational and, therefore, possible.

If Jesus of Nazareth is in fact God incarnate as the testimony of the Apostles and others holds, we would expect the very kinds of displays of power and authority attributed to Him.

But sealybobo holds that this historical testimony is the stuff of fairytales.

"WE GOT NO PROOF!", he says.

But we do have testimonial evidence. As for "proof," that's in the eye of the beholder, so let's take a look at the eye of this beholder, because there's something weird about it.

We weren't there, he says!

That’s right! sealybobo wasn't there to observe these events, which are of a historical and empirical nature according to the testimonial evidence, so how does sealybobo know that they are fairytales? Is sealybobo hinting that he was there after telling us that he wasn't? That's weird.

But sealybobo doesn't just tell us that the reason he doesn't believe the testimony is because he wasn't there, except when he implies that he was there, which is weird, he tells us that even if he had been there, he would find that the testimony were all lies or delusions anyway, for he tells us that such displays of power and authority are unbelievable.

But why would such things be unbelievable? Would these not constitute the very kind of evidence that sealybobo demands for God existence? Though why the magnificent display of the cosmos and the logical facts of human cognition are not already enough for him is, well, you know, weird. . . . Oh, that's right, because according to sealybobo, God doesn't exist in the first place.

Hence, sealybobo’s #6 is God doesn’t exist!

Hence, sealybobo’s implied #7 is God doesn’t exist!

But as I've already shown, God does exist according the laws of human thought, and sealybobo's position is logically contradictory and paradoxical, the stuff of blind, unjustified faith. That's weird.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hey Rawlings,

Is the 7 things some kind of Inductive proof?

Deduced and inferred facts of existence, with a deduced, axiomatic proof.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?

Already addressed that. God, by definition, is the Creator. To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.

Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.

Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.

You do have a point. Even if I try to use the definition I posted, I run into the problem of "Is god anything? If so, then what created God? Was it God?"

I don't think I want go down that line.

There has to be a better way to phrase the definition.

Nah. He has no standing point. That's already been demolished. He's just begging the question.

 

[G.T.]

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?

Already addressed that. God, by definition, is the Creator. To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.

Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.

Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.

That's weird.

Presupper in 3d.

 

[G.T.]

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?

Already addressed that. God, by definition, is the Creator. To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.

Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.

Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.

You do have a point. Even if I try to use the definition I posted, I run into the problem of "Is god anything? If so, then what created God? Was it God?"

I don't think I want go down that line.

There has to be a better way to phrase the definition.

Nah. He has no standing point. That's already been demolished. He's just begging the question.

You're just sad now, dude.


"Like. Like.. ..I can prove god as an absolute fact but like....just not ultimately."

Lol fuggin clown.

Ultimately. ...absolutely......lolzzzz

You are reduced to absurdity.