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

[Justin Davis]

"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.

I can't believe you're lying again. Wait! Yes I can.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"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.

I can't believe you're lying again. Wait! Yes I can.

He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right? There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.

 

[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.

I can't believe you're lying again. Wait! Yes I can.

He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.

I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.

"I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.

If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.

Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Whoa! You did learn your lesson well from your experience arguing the Cosmological, better than I would have given you credit for.

No one else on this thread has emphatically driven this point home as you just did, and this proof does universally apply.

However, it's important that you have this proof comprehensively straight in your mind. I don't mean to nitpick, but this is important, and I suspect this is the problem to which armchaos is trying to alert you.

State the matter as follows: the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the universal standard for the objective propositions and proofs of justified true belief/knowledge.

In other words, don't leave consciousness (the axioms/proofs of intuition and deduction) out of the equation. When you only assert the inductive aspect of the proof, the argument from absurdity of the infinite regression of origin, you're alluding to the empirical inferences of induction that may be objectively asserted as justified true belief/knowledge only.

Notwithstanding, you have the right idea, and you're correct to point out that the essence of your argument against the objection of solipsism raised by armchaos is purely deductive. What the Solipsist believes about the actual nature of the other existents in his mind is irrelevant to the fact that he is indeed consciously aware of these rational constructs and that The Seven Things objectively and logically hold on that basis. The theist doesn't have to demonstrate the concrete reality of these constructs at all. That issue is utterly immaterial, pun intended.

As for the materialist, he necessarily concedes that the constructs regarding the apparently empirical existents are concrete, so the theist justifiably proceeds with a deductive-inductive argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Anyone who believes in Jesus is just someone who had their brain eaten by a zombie.

I say that because post resurrection Jesus is a zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no heartbeat, no breathing, no body temperature.

Just another BS Story from the unknowledgable.

Hi MrDVS1
What about the interpretation that Jesus represents JUSTICE embodied in the realm of man?

Are you okay with people having faith that JUSTICE exists on a higher level
and the point of humanity's learning curve is to establish JUSTICE in our laws, relations and society.

Anything wrong with that idea?

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

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

Fine, MrDVS1. I agree it makes more sense to focus on healthy relations and society in the real world.

On that note, wouldn't a focus on "Equal Justice and Peace" for all people
be a central, unifying focus?

Why not align on that common principle and value that is beneficial to all humanity?

Instead of dividing over religion and politics,
wouldn't it be better to seek to establish equal justice under law
in all our relationships, reach an agreed understanding between people
as we are trying to do here, and then multiple and expand that worldwide.

Do you have any objections to correcting and preventing injustice
and to invest in repairing damaged relations and communities
in order to rebuild good faith and good will in working together on
sustainable solutions that improve society's outlook and future?

 

[emilynghiem]

"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.

I can't believe you're lying again. Wait! Yes I can.

He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.

I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.

"I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.

If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.

Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.

Dear GT:
M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.

What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
has anything to do with a logistical proof.

I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.

But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.

I ran into this phenomenon in college.

My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.

It's the same math.

But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.

MD is right, although my three criticisms are
1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
His proof serves as the first and last step:
A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition

It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role

MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.

It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.

#2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person.
He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.

He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.

He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to
work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.

I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.

This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

No, that's not what makes something true.

If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.

Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.

If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.

Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't always know
how to use or interpret dreams to help us.

Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
we tend to believe that person.

So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?

Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.

But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.

 

[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

I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right? There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.

Actully, No

A rational argument can take many forms. However, asking if it is an inductive argument or deductive argument carries significant weight.

A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.

An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
(This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences. For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?

Think about it. Even claims of "experiences" by believers can be considered empirical evidence for "GOD" and the atheist will discount it!! No matter how much of this type of evidence you give. ( Strange, don't you think, that it is an atheist that is pointing out the paradox of the materialists worldview?)

An inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)

In the argument for the solipsists--The solipsists realizes that the things that he perceives could be figments of his mind. That is the problem. How can you DEDUCTIVELY prove something is real 100% of the time when are you have are perceptions that it is real? You can't, you need induction. In this case, intuition can also fit the bill as well!! (Hmm, another funny paradox can arise here in terms of the existence of God. Don't you find it strange that it is an atheists that is pointing these things out?)

The arguments in the 7 things are inductive. 1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3). However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.

If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient. Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an assumption.


Can his argument be construed as rational? I can say 1 and 2 are rational in the inductive sense. But he is claiming to use deduction, which he is not. 3, as presented, is a mess but can be streghtened and turned into a deductive(Giving a definition). However, I do find it suspect that he does not wish to do this. Hence, I think he has an ulterior motive to this argument and point 3 is the heart of it.

I seriously wish he tried posting "7 things" on a Catholic forum, especially one dedicate to philosophy and metaphysically thought. I am sure they will point out a lot more mistakes than I and probably won't be as gentle about it.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE:

IDIOTS!
​

Dear M.D. Rawlings: I can't emphasize enough how much difference it makes to
Please Refrain
from derogatory attitude and insults about people when seeking to resolve issues with the TAG proof.

You are right that the math stands on its own, regardless the fits or chalk you throw in the classroom.
but it is distracting from the integrity and understanding of your proof.

Especially, M.D. when the path to understanding God is through FORGIVENESS in Christ Jesus,
then you cannot teach this concept while expressing
CONTEMPT for others.

The number one issue preventing people from getting and following your proof
is INABILITY TO FORGIVE past conflicts and differences between Christians and nonchristians,
theists and nontheists.

I urge you to take this side factor into account.

No, it is not directly tied in with the truth of the proof.

But indirectly it has 98% to do with why the process will either fail or succeed.

If we are going to teach forgiveness we have to practice it first.

This is a basic Biblical concept.

For God to be on your side, you have to be on the side of God
which is unconditional love and acceptance not retribution and condemnation
due to lack of understanding.

You are jumping ahead, and expecting people to forgive already.
But if you don't demonstrate the same forgiveness,
who are YOU to preach and call other people names like idiots?

These are brilliant conscientious people you are addressing,
far from idiots. Please refrain from this bias and you'll see it makes a difference
in how they receive and work with you with greater tolerance and respect as well.

Thanks MD

 

[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.

I can't believe you're lying again. Wait! Yes I can.

He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.

I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.

"I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.

If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.

Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.

Dear GT:
M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.

What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
has anything to do with a logistical proof.

I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.

But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.

I ran into this phenomenon in college.

My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.

It's the same math.

But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.

MD is right, although my three criticisms are
1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
His proof serves as the first and last step:
A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition

It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role

MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.

It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.

#2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person.
He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.

He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.

He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to
work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.

I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.

This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.

You and I vehemently disagree.

You think his problem is he's more advanced. I find that really ridiculous.

His problem is that he doesn't know what a logical fallacy is, and he doesn't know the difference between an axiom and a baseless assertion.

Sorry Emily, he might be your huckleberry because you presuppose his conclusion, but he isn't the advanced professor he's the kid playing fake smart for all the dummies and flailing when folks of average or above intelligence call him out for being absurd.

We are worlds apart on that, you and me. Hopefully this clears up your misconception that he's simply miscommunicating his idea and needs to dumb it down. On the contrary, he needs to smarten up and stop being a charlatan.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right? There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.

Actully, No

A rational argument can take many forms. However, asking if it is an inductive argument or deductive argument carries significant weight.

A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.

An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
(This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences. For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?

Think about it. Even claims of "experiences" by believers can be considered empirical evidence for "GOD" and the atheist will discount it!! No matter how much of this type of evidence you give. ( Strange, don't you think, that it is an atheist that is pointing out the paradox of the materialists worldview?)

An inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)

In the argument for the solipsists--The solipsists realizes that the things that he perceives could be figments of his mind. That is the problem. How can you DEDUCTIVELY prove something is real 100% of the time when are you have are perceptions that it is real? You can't, you need induction. In this case, intuition can also fit the bill as well!! (Hmm, another funny paradox can arise here in terms of the existence of God. Don't you find it strange that it is an atheists that is pointing these things out?)

The arguments in the 7 things are inductive. 1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3). However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.

If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient. Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an assumption.


Can his argument be construed as rational? I can say 1 and 2 are rational in the inductive sense. But he is claiming to use deduction, which he is not. 3, as presented, is a mess but can be streghtened and turned into a deductive(Giving a definition). However, I do find it suspect that he does not wish to do this. Hence, I think he has an ulterior motive to this argument and point 3 is the heart of it.

I seriously wish he tried posting "7 things" on a Catholic forum, especially one dedicate to philosophy and metaphysically thought. I am sure they will point out a lot more mistakes than I and probably won't be as gentle about it.

Dear amrchaos:
What do you think of the idea of a "contrapositive" proof process?
Basically Christians and Deists start the proof by STATING the conclusion.
Then all the objections come out.

So in a REAL contrapositive proof, the proof would be established "globally" by showing
a UNIVERSAL conflict that explains all cases.

This doesn't apply perfectly here, but it is close to the same process.

Instead of proving a conflict that results every time,
MD just states this as a conflict that relied on defining God = creator/knowledge
which isn't perfectly global either. So this isn't totally perfect, but it can be adjusted
for each person's starting definition of God = [something universal that exists]
and show SOME contradiction comes up later but in different forms.

With the proof process I suggest,
the COMMON FACTOR = forgiveness or unforgiveness

So this could be seen as a contrapositive proof,
to show when conflicts aren't resolved to reach agreement on God
then in EVERY case there is a pattern of unforgiveness of a conflict or unresolved issue.

But the reason this is not a perfect logical/universal proof
is there is not ONE example of all cases of unforgiveness that blocks agreement on the proof.

So technically to prove it requires demonstrating this factor
for EACH and EVERY case individually, since everyone has a different version.

The pattern is universal, but cannot be proven by science as MD said correctly.
It can be demonstrated as a theory and verified in every case studied.

but there is no way to prove it will always happen for all humanity.
that part will always be taken on faith, that forgiveness/ unforgiveness is the common factor
in whether people reach agreement on God or they cannot resolve their differences.

 

[amrchaos]

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

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

No, that's not what makes something true.

If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.

Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.

If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.

Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't always know
how to use or interpret dreams to help us.

Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
we tend to believe that person.

So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?

Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.

But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.

I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive

However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more instructive for him.

 

[emilynghiem]

"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.

I can't believe you're lying again. Wait! Yes I can.

He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.

I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.

"I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.

If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.

Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.

Dear GT:
M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.

What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
has anything to do with a logistical proof.

I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.

But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.

I ran into this phenomenon in college.

My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.

It's the same math.

But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.

MD is right, although my three criticisms are
1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
His proof serves as the first and last step:
A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition

It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role

MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.

It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.

#2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person.
He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.

He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.

He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to
work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.

I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.

This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.

You and I vehemently disagree.

You think his problem is he's more advanced. I find that really ridiculous.

His problem is that he doesn't know what a logical fallacy is, and he doesn't know the difference between an axiom and a baseless assertion.

Sorry Emily, he might be your huckleberry because you presuppose his conclusion, but he isn't the advanced professor he's the kid playing fake smart for all the dummies and flailing when folks of average or above intelligence call him out for being absurd.

We are worlds apart on that, you and me. Hopefully this clears up your misconception that he's simply miscommunicating his idea and needs to dumb it down. On the contrary, he needs to smarten up and stop being a charlatan.

GT if MD doesn't get that when you deal with people, you need to deal with people,
then no, he is not very wise or knowledgeable about how to deal with people.

However, given his intricate expressions of what he sees going on,
he is clearly above average intelligence.

No "idiot" I know can generate or fake the posts he has laid out in detail.

GT he may be missing the obvious, but he does have intelligence on some high level
and I'm just sorely disappointed he doesn't get the simplest basics,
like not calling people IDIOTS and expect to be taken seriously or respected.

Even third graders and fifth graders are taught not to name call or bully people.

So if he is missing elementary points,
of course he is going to come across completely wrong.

We haven't even gotten past the respect issue yet.
How can we deal with the higher end arguments?

GT let's take first things first. The main thing I want to focus on first
is establishing some kind of mutual respect first, so the namecalling and attitudes are toned down.

After we agree to that, maybe we can proceed to the
logical content and arguments that you, Boss, and others are trying to address.

First things first, agreed?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

No, that's not what makes something true.

If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.

Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.

If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.

Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't always know
how to use or interpret dreams to help us.

Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
we tend to believe that person.

So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?

Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.

But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.

I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive

However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more instructive for him.

OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.

But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.

I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
to make the same process apply to more cases.

Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?

 

[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

I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right? There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.

Actully, No

A rational argument can take many forms. However, asking if it is an inductive argument or deductive argument carries significant weight.

A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.

An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
(This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences. For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?

Think about it. Even claims of "experiences" by believers can be considered empirical evidence for "GOD" and the atheist will discount it!! No matter how much of this type of evidence you give. ( Strange, don't you think, that it is an atheist that is pointing out the paradox of the materialists worldview?)

An inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)

In the argument for the solipsists--The solipsists realizes that the things that he perceives could be figments of his mind. That is the problem. How can you DEDUCTIVELY prove something is real 100% of the time when are you have are perceptions that it is real? You can't, you need induction. In this case, intuition can also fit the bill as well!! (Hmm, another funny paradox can arise here in terms of the existence of God. Don't you find it strange that it is an atheists that is pointing these things out?)

The arguments in the 7 things are inductive. 1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3). However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.

If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient. Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an assumption.


Can his argument be construed as rational? I can say 1 and 2 are rational in the inductive sense. But he is claiming to use deduction, which he is not. 3, as presented, is a mess but can be streghtened and turned into a deductive(Giving a definition). However, I do find it suspect that he does not wish to do this. Hence, I think he has an ulterior motive to this argument and point 3 is the heart of it.

I seriously wish he tried posting "7 things" on a Catholic forum, especially one dedicate to philosophy and metaphysically thought. I am sure they will point out a lot more mistakes than I and probably won't be as gentle about it.

Dear amrchaos:
What do you think of the idea of a "contrapositive" proof process?
Basically Christians and Deists start the proof by STATING the conclusion.
Then all the objections come out.

So in a REAL contrapositive proof, the proof would be established "globally" by showing
a UNIVERSAL conflict that explains all cases.

This doesn't apply perfectly here, but it is close to the same process.

Instead of proving a conflict that results every time,
MD just states this as a conflict that relied on defining God = creator/knowledge
which isn't perfectly global either. So this isn't totally perfect, but it can be adjusted
for each person's starting definition of God = [something universal that exists]
and show SOME contradiction comes up later but in different forms.

With the proof process I suggest,
the COMMON FACTOR = forgiveness or unforgiveness

So this could be seen as a contrapositive proof,
to show when conflicts aren't resolved to reach agreement on God
then in EVERY case there is a pattern of unforgiveness of a conflict or unresolved issue.

But the reason this is not a perfect logical/universal proof
is there is not ONE example of all cases of unforgiveness that blocks agreement on the proof.

So technically to prove it requires demonstrating this factor
for EACH and EVERY case individually, since everyone has a different version.

The pattern is universal, but cannot be proven by science as MD said correctly.
It can be demonstrated as a theory and verified in every case studied.

but there is no way to prove it will always happen for all humanity.
that part will always be taken on faith, that forgiveness/ unforgiveness is the common factor
in whether people reach agreement on God or they cannot resolve their differences.

I'm sorry
You are seeing something I don't see in his first 3 points.

However, if he go over to the Catholics, they will straighten him and his arguments out. My job here and now is to convince him to submit his arguments to some of those guys that takes arguments about God and religious concepts much more seriously than we do.

 

[G.T.]

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

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

No, that's not what makes something true.

If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.

Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.

If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.

Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't alwaysthat w
how to use or interpret dreams to help us.

Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
we tend to believe that person.

So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?

Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.

But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.

I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive

However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more instructive for him.

OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.

But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.

I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
to make the same process apply to more cases.

Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?

We began on a cordial footing and I am not the first to have slung mud.

Justin Davis if in recall correctly was rude to me, and m.d. followed suit. I haven't given them any respect since, and won't sans apology.

And further - there is no middle ground on our differences in approach. M.d. NEEDS "knowledge requires god" to be an axiom for the TAG argument to be valid.

The definition of an axiom is universally accepted as a self evident truth.

Since he forgoes "universal acceptance" and calls it an axiom anyways - he is being a snake by way of ducking reality.

And if he did ever use reason to come to his senses and realize it is not an axiom, his entire argument falls apart..
It is for these reasons that he has already lost. The lofty charade with terribly worded long winded posts that typically make no rational sense to an intelligent human ate attempts at saving face for an argument disproven by philosophers a zillion times on end.

He furthers his dishonesty by stating that tag has been 'peer reviewed in academia,' however when pressed for any paper or evidence of that, he simply repastes his seven things like he has tourettes. Tag would not pass peer review, and has been debunked a million times over, EVEN BY THEISTS.

This truth is evidenced by his inability to show TAG passing a credible peer review process. Watch and see.

I find it gross about human nature that a typical person can't seemingly see through a little snake in the grass. For me it comes natural.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right? There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.

Actully, No

A rational argument can take many forms. However, asking if it is an inductive argument or deductive argument carries significant weight.

A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.

An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
(This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences. For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?

Think about it. Even claims of "experiences" by believers can be considered empirical evidence for "GOD" and the atheist will discount it!! No matter how much of this type of evidence you give. ( Strange, don't you think, that it is an atheist that is pointing out the paradox of the materialists worldview?)

An inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)

In the argument for the solipsists--The solipsists realizes that the things that he perceives could be figments of his mind. That is the problem. How can you DEDUCTIVELY prove something is real 100% of the time when are you have are perceptions that it is real? You can't, you need induction. In this case, intuition can also fit the bill as well!! (Hmm, another funny paradox can arise here in terms of the existence of God. Don't you find it strange that it is an atheists that is pointing these things out?)

The arguments in the 7 things are inductive. 1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3). However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.

If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient. Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an assumption.


Can his argument be construed as rational? I can say 1 and 2 are rational in the inductive sense. But he is claiming to use deduction, which he is not. 3, as presented, is a mess but can be streghtened and turned into a deductive(Giving a definition). However, I do find it suspect that he does not wish to do this. Hence, I think he has an ulterior motive to this argument and point 3 is the heart of it.

I seriously wish he tried posting "7 things" on a Catholic forum, especially one dedicate to philosophy and metaphysically thought. I am sure they will point out a lot more mistakes than I and probably won't be as gentle about it.

Dear amrchaos:
What do you think of the idea of a "contrapositive" proof process?
Basically Christians and Deists start the proof by STATING the conclusion.
Then all the objections come out.

So in a REAL contrapositive proof, the proof would be established "globally" by showing
a UNIVERSAL conflict that explains all cases.

This doesn't apply perfectly here, but it is close to the same process.

Instead of proving a conflict that results every time,
MD just states this as a conflict that relied on defining God = creator/knowledge
which isn't perfectly global either. So this isn't totally perfect, but it can be adjusted
for each person's starting definition of God = [something universal that exists]
and show SOME contradiction comes up later but in different forms.

With the proof process I suggest,
the COMMON FACTOR = forgiveness or unforgiveness

So this could be seen as a contrapositive proof,
to show when conflicts aren't resolved to reach agreement on God
then in EVERY case there is a pattern of unforgiveness of a conflict or unresolved issue.

But the reason this is not a perfect logical/universal proof
is there is not ONE example of all cases of unforgiveness that blocks agreement on the proof.

So technically to prove it requires demonstrating this factor
for EACH and EVERY case individually, since everyone has a different version.

The pattern is universal, but cannot be proven by science as MD said correctly.
It can be demonstrated as a theory and verified in every case studied.

but there is no way to prove it will always happen for all humanity.
that part will always be taken on faith, that forgiveness/ unforgiveness is the common factor
in whether people reach agreement on God or they cannot resolve their differences.

I'm sorry
You are seeing something I don't see in his first 3 points.

However, if he go over to the Catholics, they will straighten him and his arguments out. My job here and now is to convince him to submit his arguments to some of those guys that takes arguments about God and religious concepts much more seriously than we do.

I emailed my friend who is teaching at a Catholic University.
if this is too much work for a busy professor, maybe one of his students may take interest.

Dear K:
I hope you are doing well.
Sorry to bother you as I'm sure you are busy with the new school year.

I found a Veteran/theist online who is convinced that the
TAG argument essentially proves the existence of God by definition.

Other people are saying the proof is already circular,
and set up to define and state the terms it is trying to prove.

Can you or your students explain the difference between
a deductive and inductive proof, or explain in
plain terms that the CONTENT is correct
but the presentation is not perfectly universal.

Can I ask you to share this link with your students
if any of them are studying the arguments about God, (in particular using TAG
Transcendental argument for the existence of God - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

It still assumes and limits the definition of God
to be something that isn't necessarily universal to all people.
(some people understand God as truth or wisdom, nature or forces
of life/laws of the universe, and may not make the leap to God as creator)

Is there a quick link, reference, or reply you can share
that won't take up too much of your time?

I do want to work with this Veteran to build a website
and forum to prove a Consensus on God and Jesus
by applying this same process to all cases and conflicts
over the meaning of God, Christianity, religion and the Bible.

Here is the link to the thread where another Member
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 365 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
asked for help of a Catholic logician
who can better explain what is missing from the TAG proof.

Thanks, K

If you have BETTER resources or links for forming a Consensus on God, I plan to pursue this anyway.
I thought this Veteran "M.D. Rawlings" would be a good team leader
since he is so confident his arguments establish the truth on God.
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 235 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yours truly,
Emily

I pointed out that not all people agree to
define God = Creator and Source of Knowledge

But I acknowledge that all people who believe in God
can reconcile with this proof, so it still works by definition,
because we AGREE to define God this way.

I advised to adjust the same proof to
let God = whatever people call the ultimate source of truth and life
or in some cases God = Creation, Universe or Life itself
and the same process can be used to reconcile with all people.

M.D. Rawlings: Is there a local Catholic university where you live?
The University of St. Thomas in Houston is where my friend K was
before he moved and took teaching jobs elsewhere. Can we go
through Catholic depts. and churches to set up a network online
to establish a consensus on God? What do you think of that idea?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear BreezeWood and M.D. Rawlings:
A. I agree with what BreezeWood said that basically if humans are "sinners"/imperfect, since
we are LIMIITED and FINITE how can we know for sure about something that is INFINITE AND ETERNAL.
This is clearly faith based and not proveable by man's limited means.
We can REPRESENT the infinite, but cannot "prove" it logistically
because even our logic proofs rely on DEFINITIONS that are finite while God is infinite.

So MD I agree with you that the proof is consistent and provides a universal framework of logic;
but as I said, the definition of God has to be adjusted and open to each person's different take on God.

As with BreezeWood who keeps referring to the "Almightly"
and saying your "God = Creator" is LESS than the ultimate "Almighty"
this same proof would have to be adjusted where God = "Almighty" not Christian Creator

B. BreezeWood,
if the TAG proof were to be adjusted where
Almighty is the level of God that MD is trying to say exists by default and by definition.
would you be OK with this proof?

By substituting Almighty as the highest source of all things.
Can that be the top and focus point of the proof, and then this would be true?

Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

No, that's not what makes something true.

If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.

Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.

If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.

Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't alwaysthat w
how to use or interpret dreams to help us.

Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
we tend to believe that person.

So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?

Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.

But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.

I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive

However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more instructive for him.

OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.

But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.

I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
to make the same process apply to more cases.

Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?

We began on a cordial footing and I am not the first to have slung mud.

Justin Davis if in recall correctly was rude to me, and m.d. followed suit. I haven't given them any respect since, and won't sans apology.

And further - there is no middle ground on our differences in approach. M.d. NEEDS "knowledge requires god" to be an axiom for the TAG argument to be valid.

The definition of an axiom is universally accepted as a self evident truth.

Since he forgoes "universal acceptance" and calls it an axiom anyways - he is being a snake by way of ducking reality.

And if he did ever use reason to come to his senses and realize it is not an axiom, his entire argument falls apart..
It is for these reasons that he has already lost. The lofty charade with terribly worded long winded posts that typically make no rational sense to an intelligent human ate attempts at saving face for an argument disproven by philosophers a zillion times on end.

He furthers his dishonesty by stating that tag has been 'peer reviewed in academia,' however when pressed for any paper or evidence of that, he simply repastes his seven things like he has tourettes. Tag would not pass peer review, and has been debunked a million times over, EVEN BY THEISTS.

This truth is evidenced by his inability to show TAG passing a credible peer review process. Watch and see.

I find it gross about human nature that a typical person can't seemingly see through a little snake in the grass. For me it comes natural.

Yes, GT on both points
1. I believe you have been more cordial and respectful than this namecalling I saw from MD.
2. I agree with your point that MD should acknowledge that what we set the definition to of God at the beginning
may need to change for each person or audience, and it is NOT necessarily universal to set God = creator or
source of all knowledge.

My mother understands "wisdom" and "spiritual laws" but questions the truth and knowledge of man as delusional.

So that language/concept is not going to fly with all people
but leave out some people's understanding of God and teh meaning to them in their lives and reality.

GT if you please work with me and others anyway,
MD will come around as we focus on teh content
and not the poor opinions expressed of the people here.

I see a lot me good than bad, and the bad attitudes can change.
The good points are going to carry this proof process anyway.

So I ask you to keep focusing on that, the good points, and please forgive the bad
until we can find better ways to correct the things going wrong here. Thanks!