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

[G.T.]

Allrighty. Fair enough, you asked in a pleasant way and who am I to be an asshole? I'm not one.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

I see that now because I do know the difference between deduction and induction, so I guess that's what armchaos meant because I didn't understand him at first. But my point on solipsism is deductive. Also, I just got the reason you should always say "from nothing, nothing comes."

 

[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.

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.

I understand this much. I know what inductive and deductive reasoning are and the difference. I just messed up by implying the wrong part of the proof for the objective standard. Rawlings got me straight on that. There's nothing inductive about my refutation of the solipsist objection you made.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I see that now because I do know the difference between deduction and induction, so I guess that's what armchaos meant because I didn't understand him at first. But my point on solipsism is deductive. Also, I just got the reason you should always say "from nothing, nothing comes."

Actually, it's okay to say something coming from nothing is absurd if it's qualified. It's just easier and better to say from nothing, nothing comes because in the philosophical cannon that iteration of the idea is understood to be formally premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind (the subjects of deductive reasoing) and the infinite regression of origin (the objects of inductive reasoning).

 

[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.

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.

No. You are not showing me any such thing. I have addressed all of this in detail. How can you not know that? You've been on this thread from the beginning. You're regressing and going around and around that mulberry tree again.

I did not state that verbatim as such. That is misleading, GT. Why can't you simply be objective and stop playing games with yourself and others? Do you lack conviction, confidence? Your straw men are pathetic.

Earlier in this thread I allowed for that language without qualification from others as a means of pushing the discussion forward in the face of Jake and Company's crap coupled with QW's crap.

We've already been over the following, and this is the last time with you. From here out cut and paste. And by the way, this is why you keep getting cut and paste.

Ultimacy goes to the conventions of constructive logic only! And in constructive logic the ultimate purpose of suspending certain axioms/proofs of organic logic is to either affirm their credibility, not throw them out.

All alternate forms of logic are necessarily bottomed on the universal principle of identity of organic thought. Hence, the extrapolations of alternate forms of logic must inevitably conform with the organic principle of identity or they are not held to be actualities, but mere hypotheticals or absurdities!

The reality of alternate forms of logic is organic logic merely asserted in such a way as to amplify our intuitive power of supposition in order to generate additional, potentially legitimate hypotheses for both rational and scientific discourse.

The principle of identity allows for the suspension of certain kinds of axioms/proofs, for analytic purposes, that absolutely hold in organic/classical logic. It also allows that paradoxical, seemingly absurd potentialities may be left open for science. But such scientific propositions remain mere hypotheses from which science does not proceed in the absence of empirical verification/demonstration.

Currently, in both logic and science, for example, from nothing, nothing comes stands as the working theory of rational and scientific discourse! Neither logic nor science proceed from apparent absurdities. Science remains bottomed on the cause-and-effect dynamic of one metaphysical apriority of naturalism or another, and science is limited to the investigation of empirical phenomena. Science cannot and does not assert anything one way or the other in direct fashion about the transcendental constructs of rational discourse.

Hence, on these terms and on these terms only are certain universals suspended in constructive logic and in science. That is to say, they are not necessarily imposed absolutely, once again, for analytical purposes.

The law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination, for example, are suspended in constructive logic, demonstrated on a case by case basis only. Transcendental proofs that are absolute in organic logic are assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values in constructive logic, and other presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, which you fallaciously label as informal fallacies, are assigned truth values if of an empirical in nature.

According to your logic, nitwit, the cause-and-effect dynamic of naturalism for science would be a logical fallacy.

The Seven Whether or Knots, for example, are expressed in the terms of constructive logic for the analytic purpose of demonstrating the nature of the atheist's paradoxically contradictory thinking.

Knock, Knock. Anybody home?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots

1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.

5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
That's weird.

 

[G.T.]

MDS response to the failure that is tag: obsessive copy paste - full of naked assertion and internal logical fallacies, and a continued non understanding of what axiom means.

Add in the ad him attacks.

A general fat failure of a post.

Don't you know that the primacy of existence is not disproven?

Don't you know 'god is the source of knowledge' cannot be an axiom until GOD HIMSELF IS PROVEN, &universally accepted as well?

Your 'logic' is fundamentally flawed at the most basic levels.


'From nothing nothing comes' is meaningless in proving god. First objection: 'nothing' having EVER existed, has not been proven so it cannot be rationally assumed. Your house is built of straw.

Second, if nothing ever DID exist, just because we've never observed something come from nothing doesn't make it impossible. Another straw man masquerading as an absolute.

Further, the law of identity....excluded middle.....etc etc etc ALL DOWN THE LINE are meaningless in a proof of "god" unless you can show necessity for them being grounded in a sentient mind. Since you can't and haven't, your house is built on cotton. Worse than straw, at this point.




And finally - you're going to have to keep dipduckdodging that request for a peer reviewed paper on tag in "academia" because ONE DOESNT EXIST. your appeal failed there, cowgirl.

Carry on failing.

 

[Hollie]

I see that now because I do know the difference between deduction and induction, so I guess that's what armchaos meant because I didn't understand him at first. But my point on solipsism is deductive. Also, I just got the reason you should always say "from nothing, nothing comes."

Actually, it's okay to say something coming from nothing is absurd if it's qualified. It's just easier and better to say from nothing, nothing comes because in the philosophical cannon that iteration of the idea is understood to be formally premised on the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind (the subjects of deductive reasoing) and the infinite regression of origin (the objects of inductive reasoning).

"The philosophical cannon". How fitting.

 

[Hollie]

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots

1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.

5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
That's weird.

There is nothing to support your fraudulent claim that there is any such thing as "bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought."

You just make up this nonsense as you go, right?

 

[G.T.]

I think if Michael David Justin Davis Rawlings actually had the definition of AXIOM etched into his brain with a laser beam off of the Stat Trek Enterprise, he would curl up in a little ball like a baby and cry himself to sleep sucking his thumb.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I see that now because I do know the difference between deduction and induction, so I guess that's what armchaos meant because I didn't understand him at first. But my point on solipsism is deductive. Also, I just got the reason you should always say "from nothing, nothing comes."

Also, be careful with using the terms induction and inductive reasoning interchangeably without qualification.

Deductive reasoning is essentially "top-down logic," typically, reasoning from a general, major premise and other premises more limited in scope to a specific/certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning reduces everything down to a conclusion, the one that remains.

Inductive reasoning is "bottom-up logic," which in most cases proceeds from specific information/observations to generalizations of probability, so it's more general conclusions are inferences or extrapolations. In science, we assert general theories from such observations. This is the reason that in science we tentatively verify or falsify things.

The fact of the matter is that deductive reasoning can be applied to well-founded premises about empirical things. The only issue here in this instance is epistemological solipsism, antirealism, irrationalism or skepticism. Which is fine. The qualifying assertion for The Seven Things pragmatically presupposes that the apparent cosmological order is concrete, real, actual, and that the apparent laws of organic/classical thought actually hold and are synchronized with the properties and processes of empirical phenomena outside of our minds. Everything we do in science pragmatically presupposes these things to be true.

But in any event, the first principles of human cognition need not even appeal to the empirical realm of being as something concrete at all in order to assert any of The Seven Things!

Even the solipsist necessarily concedes that at the very least the constructs related to the apparent existents outside his mind do exist inside his mind, even if he holds that they be nothing more than ideas about things that have no concrete substance beyond the confines of his mind. Further, one can strike #2 from the list and challenge the solipsist to deny his own existence or account for his origin. . . . The idea of God as his Creator immediately follows. Cogito ergo sum; ergo est sensa de Deus ("I think, therefore, I am; therefore, the idea of God").

So now what? End of the debate, that's what!

 

[BreezeWood]

emilynghiem said


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!

em. 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.

that is your argument emilynghiem not mine -

acquiring knowledge is the pursuit of life, it is your religion that believes everyone is a sinner - no God is necessary to "know" the truth is my position.

em: As with BreezeWood who keeps referring to the "Almightly"
and saying your "God = Creator" ...

Everlasting = is responsible for all that exists including God -

is what I have stated in this thread emilynghiem.


just to clear up your misgivings ... thanks.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

"How can one imply Atheism without an awareness of God?"

Apparently, that obvious fact of human cognition needs to be repeated over and over again for some.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

emilynghiem said


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!

em. 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.

that is your argument emilynghiem not mine -

acquiring knowledge is the pursuit of life, it is your religion that believes everyone is a sinner - no God is necessary to "know" the truth is my position.

em: As with BreezeWood who keeps referring to the "Almightly"
and saying your "God = Creator" ...

Everlasting = is responsible for all that exists including God -

is what I have stated in this thread emilynghiem.


just to clear up your misgivings ... thanks.

Right. So the Everlasting is God the Creator, the highest conceivable entity, and all this noise is over semantics regarding a rose that is still a rose.

Ridiculous.

Define Everlasting, BreezeWood.

 

[Hollie]

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?

"How can one imply Atheism without an awareness of God?"

Apparently, that obvious fact of human cognition needs to be repeated over and over again for some.

Apparently, your fundamentalist views make it difficult for you to resolve some pretty basic concepts.

Why don't you first define "gawd" and then make a case for your polytheistic gawds.

 

[Boss]

Why don't you first define "gawd" and then make a case for your polytheistic gawds.

Because things do not have to be defined specifically to make cases for their existence generally. It's like Your Mind... Scientists have discovered it does exist, but they aren't sure what's inside. The gravitational forces are so strong that no light can escape, so we have no way to observe it. We know it exists, but things seem to vanish at the event horizon.

 

[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 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.

I can write a deductive logic statement using that uses the statement
"knowledge required that God had existed"

However, my conclusion would be
"That God had existed"

suggesting that God may not exist now, and will it describe God no more than "God is that which created the Universe"

Again, I am in a situation that God could very well be the Big Bang. That is deism and/or some from of non-theistic concept.

I guess I should post the argument?

 

[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.

I can write a deductive logic statement using that uses the statement
"knowledge required that God had existed"

However, my conclusion would be
"That God had existed"

suggesting that God may not exist now, and will it describe God no more than "God is that which created the Universe"

Again, I am in a situation that God could very well be the Big Bang. That is deism and/or some from of non-theistic concept.

I guess I should post the argument?

But if youre using a non sentient 'god' then calling it 'god' is changing the context of what humans coined as 'god(s) for all of our history- so really a different term altogether would be more fitting for what youve been alluding to.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

I can write a deductive logic statement using that uses the statement
"knowledge required that God had existed"

However, my conclusion would be
"That God had existed"

suggesting that God may not exist now, and will it describe God no more than "God is that which created the Universe"

Again, I am in a situation that God could very well be the Big Bang. That is deism and/or some from of non-theistic concept.

I guess I should post the argument?

But if youre using a non sentient 'god' then calling it 'god' is changing the context of what humans coined as 'god(s) for all of our history- so really a different term altogether would be more fitting for what youve been alluding to.

Ahh

I take it that you are an agnostic/agnostic atheist based primarily on the definition of the God of Abraham? Pretty much all agnostics/agnostic atheist in the Western Hemisphere are.

By the way, Emily, no, I do not know of anyone specific. But if you can, do present it to your friend and make it clear that you did not write it. Hopefully he is in a good when you do.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I can write a deductive logic statement using that uses the statement
"knowledge required that God had existed"

However, my conclusion would be
"That God had existed"

suggesting that God may not exist now, and will it describe God no more than "God is that which created the Universe"

Again, I am in a situation that God could very well be the Big Bang. That is deism and/or some from of non-theistic concept.

I guess I should post the argument?

But if youre using a non sentient 'god' then calling it 'god' is changing the context of what humans coined as 'god(s) for all of our history- so really a different term altogether would be more fitting for what youve been alluding to.

Ahh

I take it that you are an agnostic/agnostic atheist based primarily on the definition of the God of Abraham? Pretty much all agnostics/agnostic atheist in the Western Hemisphere are.

By the way, Emily, no, I do not know of anyone specific. But if you can, do present it to your friend and make it clear that you did not write it. Hopefully he is in a good when you do.

In my rational mind I'm agnostic.

When I'm emotional or creative, I hope there's more.

I tell everyone that aside from the joy of family & friends, I won't die happy unless I can do two things: time travel, and learn our origins of all existence.

Both are a real long shot. Its really hard for me to be intrigued. Sometimes, good ideas in movies/music/literature can catch me.

I'm also into ASMR big time.

Through the Wormhole is my favorite TV show. Shark tank after that.