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

[Hollie]

Hey Rawlings,

Is the 7 things some kind of Inductive proof?

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

Except that its a fraud.

 

[G.T.]

"Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"

/derp derp logic.

 

[Hollie]

"Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"

/derp derp logic.

A page back, the boy has invented something he calls The Laws Of Human Thought™ as pwoof of his gods.

I'm expecting another long, rambling screed that will include all of his usual slogans and cliches'.

 

[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 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)?"

Those are all subjective what ifs, immediately dismissed by the only logical standard that can be asserted objectively. Assuming that God is anything less than a Being of the highest conceivable standard of attribution from the beginning begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the highest conceivable standard. This is self-evident.

As I explained elsewhere:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10074502/


And also to another:

Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.

Now you've gone all wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the herd-mentality.

In answer to your question. . . .

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I wrote gods you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you? Yes, of course, you'd have to. If not, why not? While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.

You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.

As I wrote elsewhere:

Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument: from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It is necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its objectively highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that (1) the objectively highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that (2) he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.

​

That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.​

 

[G.T.]

 

[Hollie]

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)?"

Those are all subjective what ifs, immediately dismissed by the only logical standard that can be asserted objectively. Assuming that God is anything less than a Being of the highest conceivable standard of attribution from the beginning begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the highest conceivable standard. This is self-evident.

As I explained elsewhere:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10074502/


And also to another:

Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.

Now you've gone all wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the herd-mentality.

In answer to your question. . . .

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I wrote gods you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you? Yes, of course, you'd have to. If not, why not? While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.

You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.

As I wrote elsewhere:

Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument: from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It is necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its objectively highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that (1) the objectively highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that (2) he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.

​

That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.​

For anyone who has weed whacked their way through the landscape of Rawling'isms there are always a lot of "face palm moments" with his embarrassing gaffs, self-contradictory and self-refuting arguments.

However, there are new furrows of The Stupid recently plowed.

Behold:

"That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about."

 

[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.

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.

Critical thinking? You?

God is understood by reason and not subject to the LIMITED scope of science. How is your materialism or ontological naturalism scientifically verifiable?

I'm cutting you off.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Non sequitur.

 

[Justin Davis]

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)?"

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

 

[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)?"

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

Actually
To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"

I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe. If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang? If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?

Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang. Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.

We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient. We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe. Scientifically we do not have. Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture. We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.

There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe. A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture. That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.

In fact, we do not know if it even had a start. To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.

You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient) The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything". Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.

Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
Understand, the statement

"sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"

Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called. However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.

For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"= that which creates our Universe..

See, I just establish "God" as an event.

Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being. It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability). If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.

I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3. I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.

 

[BreezeWood]

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)?"

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

brown nose: What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?

but brown nose, #3 is - "The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists" - is only in your mind ...

the Everlasting is the Creator of all things ... "greater" is the fact nothing will persist that is not permitted by the Almighty.

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

and who are those who read past the above fallacy and drown themselves in the disbelief of others ... "As for animals, I certainly don't buy behaviorism or materialism, and both have been essentially falsified anyway, at least in terms of the conscious whole being greater than the sum of its parts". ... mdr of course -

mdr: Well, only God would know, so we have to go to scripture, and then we have the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth.

the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth. - insightful mdr, maybe you are alive afterall.



the Bossy imperative: Only God Knows - and confirmed - Well, only God would know ... < they, et all are simply lost - the Seven Things.

indeed, how can sinners know anything ?


.

 

[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 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)?"

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

brown nose: What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?

but brown nose, #3 is - "The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists" - is only in your mind ...

the Everlasting is the Creator of all things ... "greater" is the fact nothing will persist that is not permitted by the Almighty.

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

and who are those who read past the above fallacy and drown themselves in the disbelief of others ... "As for animals, I certainly don't buy behaviorism or materialism, and both have been essentially falsified anyway, at least in terms of the conscious whole being greater than the sum of its parts". ... mdr of course -

mdr: Well, only God would know, so we have to go to scripture, and then we have the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth.

the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth. - insightful mdr, maybe you are alive afterall.



the Bossy imperative: Only God Knows - and confirmed - Well, only God would know ... < they, et all are simply lost - the Seven Things.

indeed, how can sinners know anything ?


.

God it the Creator. That's life everlasting knowledge. What are you talking about. I said I don't buy into behaviorism or materialism, which I do not regard animals to be mere machines, and neither does God. Further is our job to rule over them, which means it is also our job to care for them and to use them responsibly. Notwithstanding, animals our resources. They did not have the same value before God as mankind. Christ did not die for them. He died to redeem us.

 

[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 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)?"

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

Actually
To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"

I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe. If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang? If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?

Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang. Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.

We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient. We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe. Scientifically we do not have. Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture. We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.

There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe. A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture. That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.

In fact, we do not know if it even had a start. To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.

You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient) The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything". Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.

Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
Understand, the statement

"sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"

Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called. However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.

For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"= that which creates our Universe..

See, I just establish "God" as an event.

Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being. It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability). If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.

I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3. I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.

Let me interpose something here. You fail to grasp the thrust of the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mine and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of a divine sentience of the highest conceivable order of being and from nothing, nothing comes: sentience + from nothing, nothing comes = Creator. You cannot yank the proof out from under the conclusion. Hence, your objection does not follow and it is eliminated by the proof. It is your objection that begs the question, not the proof. The proof negates your logical error. You cannot overturn the first principle, whether you understand it or not.

In other words we, any one in the world, now asks you: who/what caused the singularity from whence the Big Bang erupted?

 

[Boss]

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

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

The rest is just horse shit.

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

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

Wait a minute. YOU believe in god because he exists in your mind. So god is real because you believe it to be real.

Why didn't you answer the question? Where is your proof that humans are born atheist? You need to answer MY questions with answers or I am not going to keep answering yours or responding to your false accusations of things you think I said.

I believe in God because I communicate with God daily and realize the benefit from it. I've told you that it's not in my mind, but here you seem to indicate that has somehow been proven to be a fact. Are you confused, son?

So why can't anything and everything I believe be true too?

Because everything you believe is toxic waste. But for the record, you've not presented evidence for anything you believe. You keep making claims without supporting them. You won't answer tough questions. You avoid them by lobbing more claims you haven't supported. This reply is the evidence. See... I back my claims with evidence.

Since I thunk it, it must be true.

If you thunk it, it's about as valuable as the dried sperm wad in your mother's sock.

People have always doubted god existed too just like some people have always believed. So your theory is way off. Sorry.

I didn't have a theory on how many people doubted God's existence. 95% of the species is spiritual and always has been. 5% are freaks of nature.

Your only argument here is that more people believe than don't. So what?

No, my argument is 95%.. not "more" but "almost all." The remaining 5% are statistical freaks of nature who believe in nothingness.

Implicit atheism

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

No... Implicit means "implied though not plainly expressed." How can one imply Atheism without an awareness of God? I understand how an infant can't plainly express, they lack the capability, as they lack the capability to do almost anything. But they can't imply something they aren't aware of. They also can't consciously reject something they aren't aware of. So you must believe all humans are born with awareness of God. Right?

 

[Hollie]

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)?"

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

Actually
To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"

I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe. If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang? If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?

Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang. Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.

We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient. We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe. Scientifically we do not have. Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture. We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.

There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe. A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture. That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.

In fact, we do not know if it even had a start. To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.

You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient) The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything". Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.

Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
Understand, the statement

"sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"

Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called. However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.

For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"= that which creates our Universe..

See, I just establish "God" as an event.

Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being. It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability). If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.

I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3. I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.

Let me interpose something here. You fail to grasp the thrust of the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mine and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of a divine sentience of the highest conceivable order of being and from nothing, nothing comes: sentience + from nothing, nothing comes = Creator. You cannot yank the proof out from under the conclusion. Hence, your objection does not follow and it is eliminated by the proof. It is your objection that begs the question, not the proof. The proof negates your logical error. You cannot overturn the first principle, whether you understand it or not.

In other words we, any one in the world, now asks you: who/what caused the singularity from whence the Big Bang erupted?

That's standard piffle for christian extremists. You excuse your self-refuting arguments as pointless and absurd because without that exemption, you're faced with the failure of your polytheistic gods and your theology.

 

[Justin Davis]

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)?"

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

Actually
To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"

I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe. If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang? If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?

Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang. Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.

We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient. We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe. Scientifically we do not have. Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture. We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.

There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe. A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture. That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.

In fact, we do not know if it even had a start. To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.

You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient) The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything". Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.

Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
Understand, the statement

"sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"

Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called. However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.

For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"= that which creates our Universe..

See, I just establish "God" as an event.

Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being. It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability). If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.

I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3. I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.

From where I'm standing when someone says they established something in logic that means they did it with a standard that can't be logically refuted. So the standard would have to be objective. Anyone can say theyt don't believe in the objective standard, but that's not the same thing as negating it. The standing axiom for logic and science is that "something cannot come from nothing", though Rawlings says you should always express it as "from nothing, nothing comes". I didn't agree with him on that before because "something cannot come from nothing" seemed to mean the same thing. But now I just figured out why he's right. But what you're saying is "nothing from nothing", which = nothing. Nothing isn't zero. To add nothing to anything = nothing logically. But that's really not the point anyway. There's nothing being assumed about the idea that God by definition means cause/agent, not effect. An event would be an effect. To think that God is lower than the highest possibility is what assumes something for no good reason.

 

[amrchaos]

His argument is inductive in nature

1)We exist can only be proven inductively.

Solipsism is valid here. I can deductively prove that my mind exist
But when it comes to the things I see, I must use induction to prove those things exist. (

He posits that his arguments come from only deduction and inferrence--neither of which is used to establish 1)

From this point on, everything he posits is resting on induction, questionable uses of inferences and assumptinos about things that may not be true.

Another case is 2) Cosmological Order exist is also an inductive statement.
This seems to rely on the natural science, which is inductive by nature. By the way, it does not seem like 2) is needed.

Case 3) I seen his arguments for it. I do not find them plausible--not from a deductive standpoint, not from an inductive standpoint, and especially not from a standpoint using inferrence. I suggested to him to drop the need of implying that God is a sentient being and using an open ended definition.


So far, the first 3 statements is heavily reliant on induction, it is not necessary to continue this farce that we are reading a statement based on inference and deductive logic when almost half the material does not make use of such devices in an accurate and sound manner.

P.S.--Try taken these "7 things" to a Catholic Forum. I doubt they will treat you as kindly as I have if you posted it and made the same claims about these 7 things as you did here!!

 

[Justin Davis]

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)?"

What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists? You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?! It's a no brainer.

Actually
To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"

I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe. If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang? If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?

Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang. Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.

We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient. We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe. Scientifically we do not have. Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture. We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.

There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe. A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture. That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.

In fact, we do not know if it even had a start. To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.

You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient) The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything". Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.

Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
Understand, the statement

"sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"

Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called. However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.

For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"= that which creates our Universe..

See, I just establish "God" as an event.

Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being. It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability). If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.

I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3. I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.

Let me interpose something here. You fail to grasp the thrust of the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mine and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of a divine sentience of the highest conceivable order of being and from nothing, nothing comes: sentience + from nothing, nothing comes = Creator. You cannot yank the proof out from under the conclusion. Hence, your objection does not follow and it is eliminated by the proof. It is your objection that begs the question, not the proof. The proof negates your logical error. You cannot overturn the first principle, whether you understand it or not.

In other words we, any one in the world, now asks you: who/what caused the singularity from whence the Big Bang erupted?

That's standard piffle for christian extremists. You excuse your self-refuting arguments as pointless and absurd because without that exemption, you're faced with the failure of your polytheistic gods and your theology.

Lack of thought is not a refutation. armchaos is refuted and so are you. Saying it's possible that the Creator of all other things that exist is not sentient makes no sense and saying that the Creator of all other things that exist does not equate to ability doesn't make sense. Saying that God might be something less than God doesn't make sense. That's what is self-refuting. Saying that existence doesn't necessarily mean a creation is true, but that's just another guess that says that the highest order can be logically eliminated. Nope, that's wrong. A lower possibility can never eliminate a logically higher possibility. The logically higher possibility can and often does eliminate the lower possibility and never begs the question like the lower possibility always does automatically.

Anyone can say or believe anything they want about God, but that doesn't mean that just whatever you say is logical. Everything in science and logic is based on the absurdity of infinite regression. That's the cognitive basis for objectivity in human thinking. See I learned all this the hard way after trying to make the cosmological argument against an atheist who knew all these things better than me. Once I understood things totally I realized that this atheist wasn't even being honest anyway. He was just arguing to argue and to make me feel foolish because he obviously knew that the absurdity of infinite regression is the basis of objective thinking. This understanding in human beings is the basis for objective standards about everything we can think about. See if you understand that and call me stupid again. Some of you think I'm dumb because I'm still learning to write better, but I'm not. Some of you think I just follow what Rawlings says with no understanding of my own.

 

[amrchaos]

By the way--when you make a list of who stands where on your list, let me state where I stand....

Not even 1--Due to it requiring induction and the author claiming he has a deductive proof

 

[Justin Davis]

His argument is inductive in nature

1)We exist can only be proven inductively.

Solipsism is valid here. I can deductively prove that my mind exist
But when it comes to the things I see, I must use induction to prove those things exist. (

He posits that his arguments come from only deduction and inferrence--neither of which is used to establish 1)

From this point on, everything he posits is resting on induction, questionable uses of inferences and assumptinos about things that may not be true.

Another case is 2) Cosmological Order exist is also an inductive statement.
This seems to rely on the natural science, which is inductive by nature. By the way, it does not seem like 2) is needed.

Case 3) I seen his arguments for it. I do not find them plausible--not from a deductive standpoint, not from an inductive standpoint, and especially not from a standpoint using inferrence. I suggested to him to drop the need of implying that God is a sentient being and using an open ended definition.


So far, the first 3 statements is heavily reliant on induction, it is not necessary to continue this farce that we are reading a statement based on inference and deductive logic when almost half the material does not make use of such devices in an accurate and sound manner.

P.S.--Try taken these "7 things" to a Catholic Forum. I doubt they will treat you as kindly as I have if you posted it and made the same claims about these 7 things as you did here!!

But I understand all this. Solipsism was a new word for me when Rawlings first mentioned it way early in this thread, way back near the beginning. Then folks started making arguments about antirealism and irrationalism and he countered those too. He just mentioned all of those things again. He qualified all of that and I agree with his qualification. It's fair, objective and logical. Why do you keep going back to that?

All the theists have already said that the basic evidence for God's existence which gives us the idea of God is based on the assumption that the basic things of consciousness are real. If you accept that this is true, then all the other things follow, deductively and inductively. If you don't they still follow but only deductively. Either way, objectively, they follow. Okay, you win, nothing's real but you. The solipsist still has to be objective about the idea of God because he still has to be objective about the possibility that he could be wrong. I don't have to pay him any mind if he doesn't do that. He still has the seven things in his mind logically just like everyone else, and that argument, the one I just made, is not inductive but deductive.