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

[Hollie]

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.

That's a ridiculous attempt at a failed analogy.

There's nothing supernatural about gravity. Gawds, on the other hand....

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

His argument is inductive in nature

1)We exist can only be proven inductively.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Nonsense! From beginning to end.

Deductive reasoning does not preclude scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents. The essence of deductive reasoning is the reduction of general truths to specific conclusions within the formal framework of syllogisms. Generally, inductive reasoning proceeds from a related collection of observed facts to general rules or principles which comprehensively account for the facts. That is the pertinent distinction.

The OP assumes that (1) we exist and that (2) the cosmological order exists. You're off theme. And I already qualified The Seven Things accordingly. If one accepts that #1 and #2 are true, the rest follow automatically, and nothing you're going on about here or anywhere else refutes that. This is at least the fourth time you've been told these things.

If you want to wax philosophical about the meanderings of solipsism go ahead, but they're irrelevant to the established presuppositions of this OP and The Seven Things.

The solipsist can go bark at moon. Or he can deny his existence. Good luck with that as he necessarily holds that much to be real about himself, if not about any one else or any other thing. Now let him account for his origin: ergo est sensa de Deus follows.

Moreover, the solipsist does not assert or infer his existence inductively! That's ridiculous. Self-awareness is the most immediately rational intuition of them all! I don't care what you find implausible. Your reasoning is ridiculous. You're confused.

You're real objection has nothing to do with #3, but goes to #2: the existence of the cosmological order, which is only relevant insofar as solipsism, antirealism or irrationalism is concerned. And I don't have to give a flip or flop about any one of these epistemologies. The idea that any one or that any cogent argument would necessarily be bound by them, or that any well-founded premise would necessarily be subject to the dictates of these paradigms is ridiculous.

But since you brought this irrelevancy up, though this puts us off topic, disregards the established presuppositions of this thread, strike #2 from The Seven Things and then explain to us how Cogito ergo sum; ergo est sensa de Deus ("I think, therefore, I am; therefore, the idea of God") is not purely deductive, indeed, famously deductive. More to the point, tell us how these apprehensions, these intuitions, and their nature are not purely rational.

Got the Father of modern philosophy, Descartes, the founder of epistemological rationalism, anyone? Got the Father of classical liberalism, Locke, the founder of epistemological empiricism, anyone? How about the historically famous debate between them over the merits of deductive reasoning (Descartes, Mr. Cogito himself) versus the merits of inductive reasoning (Locke)?

There's your farce!

Explain to us how the only defensibly objective idea of God (the Creator) is not open-ended.

It is your assertion that begs the question and would arbitrarily preclude the conceivably highest standard of divine attribution. I'm not dropping sentience, and no sensible person is going to drop sentience. That's ridiculous! We intuitively recognize that consciousness is of a higher order of being than inanimateness! You're trying to preclude the highest, objectively manifest possibility and do so on the grounds of epistemological rationalism no less, as if solipsism were an issue after #2 is struck.

There's your farce!

 

[G.T.]

 

[amrchaos]

I think Boss idea of "awareness of God" can be taken to mean " to have a concept of what God is" If so, I totally agree with you Boss.

In fact, I have numerous competing concepts of "what God is" and "what God was". Some of which I can't discount. Others which I can't disprove. A few that I actually seen!

When someone says he is an atheist(agnosticism implied), there is some specific god concept they do not accept.

There is no such thing as a "Pure" atheists. There is a definition for God that no atheist can rationally say it is illogical. But this definition of God is not the God of Abraham.

Now Boss, given that I have awareness of different types of Gods, which one am I should take for a monotheistic world view? Doing so requires I refute the others, why would that make sense?

I am also pretty sure most of you became aware of Greek Gods. That imposed several concepts of what a God is, and even suggested Goddess as well. Why did you refute those Gods after becoming aware of them?

That is basically what is going on with nonbelievers in terms of the God of Abraham.

 

[amrchaos]

Which is stronger--
A Deductive logic statement made in Philosophy?
.
Or an Inductive logic statement(i.e. a scientific statement made using empirical evidence on past weather formation, for example) made by a Meteorologists?

Believe me--I m tired of this farce--go to a Catholic forum focused on philosophy and theological concepts and make that statement, MD!!

I dare you
I double dare you
I triple dare you!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hey Rawlings,

Is the 7 things some kind of Inductive proof?

No.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Which is stronger--
A Deductive logic statement made in Philosophy?
.
Or an Inductive logic statement(i.e. a scientific statement made using empirical evidence on past weather formation, for example) made by a Meteorologists?

Believe me--I m tired of this farce--go to a Catholic forum focused on philosophy and theological concepts and make that statement, MD!!

I dare you
I double dare you
I triple dare you!!

You dare me to do what, exactly? What are you talking about? The Seven Things are objective facts of human cognition, purely rational in nature, and the proof/argument among them is deductive! It's a syllogism.

Don't go playing the game with me that I don't know the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning and which one of the two is arguably more certain assuming the arguments of the former are soundly structured and executed and the premises are true.

 

[amrchaos]

I think I am getting what is going on

I think MD think that I am a materialist.
That is, he thinks I believe that the Scientific Worldview is superior to others. Probably because I am an atheist?

Boy, if that is the case, MD,you are in for a rude awaken about how I use "world views", which I call viewpoints.

 

[G.T.]

Which is stronger--
A Deductive logic statement made in Philosophy?
.
Or an Inductive logic statement(i.e. a scientific statement made using empirical evidence on past weather formation, for example) made by a Meteorologists?

Believe me--I m tired of this farce--go to a Catholic forum focused on philosophy and theological concepts and make that statement, MD!!

I dare you
I double dare you
I triple dare you!!

You dare me to do what, exactly? What are you talking about? The Seven Things are objective facts of human cognition, purely rational in nature, and the proof/argument among them is deductive! It's a syllogism.

Don't go playing the game with me that I don't know the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning and which one of the two is arguably more certain assuming the arguments of the former are soundly sknowured and executed and that the premises are true.

You don't know fact from opinion, axiom from assertion , or deduction from induction.

Its not like they're rocket science either.

 

[amrchaos]

Which is stronger--
A Deductive logic statement made in Philosophy?
.
Or an Inductive logic statement(i.e. a scientific statement made using empirical evidence on past weather formation, for example) made by a Meteorologists?

Believe me--I m tired of this farce--go to a Catholic forum focused on philosophy and theological concepts and make that statement, MD!!

I dare you
I double dare you
I triple dare you!!

You dare me to do what, exactly? What are you talking about? The Seven Things are objective facts of human cognition, purely rational in nature, and the proof/argument among them is deductive! It's a syllogism.

Don't go playing the game with me that I don't know the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning and which one of the two is arguably more certain assuming the arguments of the former are soundly structured and executed and that the premises are true.

Post the "7 things" in A Catholic forum--One dedicated to philosophy or Theological concepts!!

Go and do it now!!

Oh--make those statements you are making. It does not help when the theist here are trying to argue that deductive and inductive logic are the same--or mixed terminology.

I am pretty sure the theist on a Catholic forum will surely keep the terminology clear and unmixed. Plus do and say a lot more about the problems of your 7 things.

Again, I'll say it so you would understand

POST YOUR "7 THINGS" ON A CATHOLIC FORUM DEDICATED TO PHILOSOPHY AND/OR THEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS!!

Just do it. What are you afraid of, theists insulting you.

By the way--make some of those remarks that you made here. I am pretty sure that would humor some of them!

 

[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.

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.

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.


You're full of shit. I recently explained the essence of calculus on this tread in its own right and explained current physics in terms of calculus. You don't know what talking about. I'm learned on both sides of that equation. Show me where I'm wrong and be sure to quote me on these topics.

 

[G.T.]

still waiting on that peer reviewed TAG paper from "academia" dipstick


Small issue: its an unsound argument.

 

[amrchaos]

"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.

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.


You're full of shit. I recently explained the essence of calculus on this tread in its own right and explained current physics in terms of calculus. You don't know what talking about. I'm learned on both sides of that equation. Show me where I'm wrong and be sure to quote me on these topics.

Emily is not talking about your proof. In fact, I think emily is down with all 7 points!!

She is referencing how you deal with people that ask questions or criticize aspects of your proof!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

Whaaaaa? The existence of the universe and its constituents are not the fundamental evidence for God's existence? Current science and empirical facts are not relevant to the philosophical and theological concerns regarding God's existence? What else what be the evidence for God's existence? Nothingness?

You're out of friggin' mind.

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.)

Bullshit! The syllogism of deductive reasoning uses the premises of inductively derived general rules and principles all the time. Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the specific. The solipsists are nincompoops.

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.

Bullshit!

There's only one formal argument in The Seven Things, and that argument is purely deductive. The other six items on that list are purely rational, self-evident facts of human cognition.

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.

You're an idiot.

 

[amrchaos]

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?

Whaaaaa? The existence of the universe and its constituents are not the fundamental evidence for God's existence? Current science and empirical facts are not relevant to the philosophical and theological concerns regarding God's existence? What else what be the evidence for God's existence? Nothingness?

You're out of friggin' mind.

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.)

Bullshit! The syllogism of deductive reasoning uses the premises of inductively derived general rules and principles all the time. Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the specific. The solipsists are nincompoops.

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.

Bullshit!

There's only one formal argument in The Seven Things, and that argument is purely deductive. The other six items on that list are purely rational, self-evident facts of human cognition.

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.

You're an idiot.

again, I will say it

Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.

...and please, feel free to make the same comments tht you made here.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

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.


You're full of shit. I recently explained the essence of calculus on this tread in its own right and explained current physics in terms of calculus. You don't know what talking about. I'm learned on both sides of that equation. Show me where I'm wrong and be sure to quote me on these topics.

Emily is not talking about your proof. In fact, I think emily is down with all 7 points!!

She is referencing how you deal with people that ask questions or criticize aspects of your proof!!

That's weird. I don't care what she's talking about. She's full of shit and so you. They're not mine. These facts of human cognition belong to us all.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

Whaaaaa? The existence of the universe and its constituents are not the fundamental evidence for God's existence? Current science and empirical facts are not relevant to the philosophical and theological concerns regarding God's existence? What else what be the evidence for God's existence? Nothingness?

You're out of friggin' mind.

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.)

Bullshit! The syllogism of deductive reasoning uses the premises of inductively derived general rules and principles all the time. Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the specific. The solipsists are nincompoops.

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.

Bullshit!

There's only one formal argument in The Seven Things, and that argument is purely deductive. The other six items on that list are purely rational, self-evident facts of human cognition.

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.

You're an idiot.

again, I will say it

Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.

...and please, feel free to make the same comments tht you made here.

And watch what happens? LOL! You mean share with them the very same observations made by Augustine and Aquinas centuries before me? The same observations asserted in scripture, made by Calvin, Whitehead and many, many others? I'm quite sure these things would be nothing new to them.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think I am getting what is going on

I think MD think that I am a materialist.
That is, he thinks I believe that the Scientific Worldview is superior to others. Probably because I am an atheist?

Boy, if that is the case, MD,you are in for a rude awaken about how I use "world views", which I call viewpoints.

I never thought any such thing, and until today I thought you had real on your shoulders. Now I see that you're liar and an idiot of the same make and model as GT, Hollie, sealybobo and company.

 

[amrchaos]

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?

Whaaaaa? The existence of the universe and its constituents are not the fundamental evidence for God's existence? Current science and empirical facts are not relevant to the philosophical and theological concerns regarding God's existence? What else what be the evidence for God's existence? Nothingness?

You're out of friggin' mind.

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.)

Bullshit! The syllogism of deductive reasoning uses the premises of inductively derived general rules and principles all the time. Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the specific. The solipsists are nincompoops.

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.

Bullshit!

There's only one formal argument in The Seven Things, and that argument is purely deductive. The other six items on that list are purely rational, self-evident facts of human cognition.

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.

You're an idiot.

again, I will say it

Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.

...and please, feel free to make the same comments tht you made here.

And watch what happens? LOL! You mean share with them the very same observations made by Augustine and Aquinas centuries before me? The same observations asserted in scripture, made by Calvin, Whitehead and many, many others? I'm quite sure these things would be nothing new to them.

Then do it, and find out if you predictions about their reactions is as you think.

Again, let me reiterate what to do:
Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.

You can do it now--You can cut and paste it here

Philosophy - Catholic Answers Forums

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups

Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?! Shut up. Nothingness is the basis of the classic arguments for God's existence?! Shut up. (Do you even think about the implications of what you were suggesting when you claimed that the cosmological order and its constituents are not the essence of the evidence for God's existence? No, you didn't, did you?) I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?! Shut up. The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, but a formal argument?! Shut up. God is not objectively understood to be a sentient Creator in the light of the purely RATIONAL axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind? Shut up! Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?! Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?! Shut. Up. You. Idiot.


LOL!