I lied about what, specifically?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
- Thread starter newpolitics
- Start date
I lied about what, specifically?
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
"Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?"
And the answer is still no.
And the answer is still no.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
I lied about what, specifically?
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!
Last edited:
BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 17,256
- 1,394
- 85
.
everything resides within the Everlasting and is caused by it.
.
everything resides within the Everlasting and is caused by it.
.
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 for God's existence?! Shut up. 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, not formal arguments?! Shut up. God is not sentient? Shut up! Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?! Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?! Shut. Up. You. Idiot.
LOL!
1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you. I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't. But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
4.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, not formal arguments?!
G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
5. God is not sentient?
I do not assert this in your proof! I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD. I do not assert anything. That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever OPEN!!
You are asserting that God is sentient. You do not prove this, you assume this in your attempts to argue 3)
6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism. If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements. OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument. Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples. Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument. Not deductive, but inductive.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
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 for God's existence?! Shut up. 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, not formal arguments?! Shut up. God is not sentient? Shut up! Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?! Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?! Shut. Up. You. Idiot.
LOL!
1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you. I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't. But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
4.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, not formal arguments?!
G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
5. God is not sentient?
I do not assert this in your proof! I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD. I do not assert anything. That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever OPEN!!
You are asserting that God is sentient. You do not prove this, you assume this in your attempts to argue 3)
6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism. If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements. OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument. Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples. Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument. Not deductive, but inductive.
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!
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
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 for God's existence?! Shut up. 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, not formal arguments?! Shut up. God is not sentient? Shut up! Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?! Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?! Shut. Up. You. Idiot.
LOL!
1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you. I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't. But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
4.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, not formal arguments?!
G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
5. God is not sentient?
I do not assert this in your proof! I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD. I do not assert anything. That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever OPEN!!
You are asserting that God is sentient. You do not prove this, you assume this in your attempts to argue 3)
6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism. If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements. OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument. Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples. Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument. Not deductive, but inductive.
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!
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
_________________________________
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
_________________________________
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
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.
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.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #1
Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.
sealybobo said:
You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.
You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. That's weird.
You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. That's weird.
You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.
You presuppose God's existence in your teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. That's weird.
Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? That's weird.
What is the essence for all this injudicious weirdness?
Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! That's weird.
We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious weirdness, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. That's weird.
We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. That's weird.
Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?
Answer: Never!
That's not weird. That's a fact.
But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the self-ordering infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?
Answer: Never!
That's not weird. That's a fact.
sealybobo: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."
Really?
Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in their own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? That's weird.
sealybobo: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."
Really?
I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being weird somehow.
One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.
Ah! I've got it!
No such grand theory exists.
Crickets chirping
That's not weird. That's a fact.
On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.
Now, admittedly, I've heard the weird rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.
Yawn
So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science:
http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.
And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/.
Newsflash: the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology: omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life. The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of abiogenesis, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.
So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these weird rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?
Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what. This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that we are here; therefore . . .) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.
That's weird.
The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.
That's not only weird, but magical.
Hocus Pocus.
Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. That's weird.
Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. (That's weird.) What do I hear for the opening bid?
sealybobo: "I'll give ya everything I got!"
Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.
Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave sealyobo a bone to gnaw on.
Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.
sealybobo said:
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.
You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. That's weird.
You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. That's weird.
You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. That's weird.
You presuppose God's existence in your teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. That's weird.
Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? That's weird.
What is the essence for all this injudicious weirdness?
Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! That's weird.
We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious weirdness, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. That's weird.
We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. That's weird.
Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?
Answer: Never!
That's not weird. That's a fact.
But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the self-ordering infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?
Answer: Never!
That's not weird. That's a fact.
sealybobo: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."
Really?
Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in their own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? That's weird.
sealybobo: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."
Really?
I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being weird somehow.
One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.
Ah! I've got it!
No such grand theory exists.
Crickets chirping
That's not weird. That's a fact.
On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.
Now, admittedly, I've heard the weird rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.
Yawn
So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science:
http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.
And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/.
Newsflash: the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology: omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life. The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of abiogenesis, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.
So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these weird rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?
Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what. This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that we are here; therefore . . .) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.
That's weird.
The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.
That's not only weird, but magical.
Hocus Pocus.
Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. That's weird.
Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. (That's weird.) What do I hear for the opening bid?
sealybobo: "I'll give ya everything I got!"
Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.
Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave sealyobo a bone to gnaw on.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #2
Continued from Post #3592: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087257/.
sealybobo said:
Here you concede that you exist and that the universe exists. You know that either a material substance has always existed or an immaterial divinity has always existed and created the material substance that has existed ever since, unless of course you're arguing that from nothing, something comes. That's weird. In which case, from absurdities, more absurdities come. That’s weird.
(See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/)
These are the choices. We know what the choices are. These are not guesses. That's weird. These are the only logical alternatives by necessity.
As you have conceded that #1 and #2 are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of The Seven Things are logically true, including #6 in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. That's weird.
So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace all of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, (1) the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or (2) stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.
You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. That's weird.
Continued from Post #3592: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087257/.
sealybobo said:
2. The universe had a start - what caused it?
We don’t know. We can ask science but if science can’t tell us all we can do is guess.
Here you concede that you exist and that the universe exists. You know that either a material substance has always existed or an immaterial divinity has always existed and created the material substance that has existed ever since, unless of course you're arguing that from nothing, something comes. That's weird. In which case, from absurdities, more absurdities come. That’s weird.
(See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/)
These are the choices. We know what the choices are. These are not guesses. That's weird. These are the only logical alternatives by necessity.
As you have conceded that #1 and #2 are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of The Seven Things are logically true, including #6 in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. That's weird.
So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace all of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, (1) the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or (2) stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.
You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. That's weird.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #3
Continued from Post #3592: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087417/.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
sealybobo said:
Let's review:
As you have conceded that #1 and #2 are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of The Seven Things are logically true, including #6 in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. That's weird.
So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace all of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, (1) the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or (2) stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.
You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. That's weird.
Hence, the theist stands on a foundation of an incontrovertible, axiomatic proof in accordance with the laws of human thought, under the terms of organic/classical logic.
He consistently embraces all the axioms of organic logic, including the "God axiom," which is bullet proof. It objectively and universally holds true, logically! To assert that this is not a fact of human cognition is to lie. To acknowledge it and walk away is to embrace paradox. You have alternately lied or embraced paradox. That's your position, not the theist's, as you argue that the theist is being unreasonable. That's weird.
Hence, the theist justifiably asserts that God is the universal Principle of Identity, the very essence and the ground of all laws: the laws of logic, the laws of morality, the laws of natural rights, and the physical laws of nature.
You are well aware of the fact of the incontrovertible "God axiom" in organic/classical logic. You contradictorily choose to reject it. That's weird. You choose not to know/believe that it's perfectly rational to hold that God is the Law Giver. You want the other axioms of human cognition, but not that one, which is of the very same a priori nature as all the others. That's weird.
Hence, You don't know why the physical laws of nature hold universally. You don't believe what organic/classical logic tells you about Who is behind it all.
There is no we.
That's weird.
That which I believe to be true constitutes justified true belief/knowledge under the laws of organic/classical logic. That's not weird. That's a fact! That's the common sense of ontological and epistemological consistency, and my conviction is objectively and logically bullet proof, unlike your subjective mush and the pseudoscientific blather that comes with it.
MY position is logically rock solid. Your position is weird.
Continued from Post #3592: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087417/.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
sealybobo said:
3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why?
Maybe we don’t know.
Maybe we don’t know.
Let's review:
As you have conceded that #1 and #2 are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of The Seven Things are logically true, including #6 in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. That's weird.
So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace all of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, (1) the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or (2) stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.
You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. That's weird.
Hence, the theist stands on a foundation of an incontrovertible, axiomatic proof in accordance with the laws of human thought, under the terms of organic/classical logic.
He consistently embraces all the axioms of organic logic, including the "God axiom," which is bullet proof. It objectively and universally holds true, logically! To assert that this is not a fact of human cognition is to lie. To acknowledge it and walk away is to embrace paradox. You have alternately lied or embraced paradox. That's your position, not the theist's, as you argue that the theist is being unreasonable. That's weird.
Hence, the theist justifiably asserts that God is the universal Principle of Identity, the very essence and the ground of all laws: the laws of logic, the laws of morality, the laws of natural rights, and the physical laws of nature.
You are well aware of the fact of the incontrovertible "God axiom" in organic/classical logic. You contradictorily choose to reject it. That's weird. You choose not to know/believe that it's perfectly rational to hold that God is the Law Giver. You want the other axioms of human cognition, but not that one, which is of the very same a priori nature as all the others. That's weird.
Hence, You don't know why the physical laws of nature hold universally. You don't believe what organic/classical logic tells you about Who is behind it all.
There is no we.
That's weird.
That which I believe to be true constitutes justified true belief/knowledge under the laws of organic/classical logic. That's not weird. That's a fact! That's the common sense of ontological and epistemological consistency, and my conviction is objectively and logically bullet proof, unlike your subjective mush and the pseudoscientific blather that comes with it.
MY position is logically rock solid. Your position is weird.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #4
Continued from Post #3604: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087801/.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
sealybobo said:
Whatever point you think you're making is as obscure as they come, but if you're under the impression that this whatever/whatnot is a that's what! supporting the atheist's position, that's weird!
In any event, everything you need to know about the matter as it pertains to the problems of existence and origin may be found right here on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.
Now that article is not a whatever/whatnot but a that's what! . . . so now what?
Continued from Post #3604: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087801/.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
sealybobo said:
4. The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
Huh? Maybe you or boss can explain this one to me.
Huh? Maybe you or boss can explain this one to me.
Whatever point you think you're making is as obscure as they come, but if you're under the impression that this whatever/whatnot is a that's what! supporting the atheist's position, that's weird!
In any event, everything you need to know about the matter as it pertains to the problems of existence and origin may be found right here on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.
Now that article is not a whatever/whatnot but a that's what! . . . so now what?
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #5
Continued from Post #3608: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087964/.
.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
sealybobo said:
Well, this one's easy: there you go again presupposing God's existence as you claim to know something absolutely, as if from on high, about something that only God could know anything about, as you argue that God doesn't exist That's weird.
So you believe God exists after all, eh? I thought you said we couldn't know or rationally believe such a thing. That's weird.
You sure do keep jumping from one belief to another a lot, and that's, well, you know, weird.
It looks like you're trying to evade/escape something you can't. That's weird.
You didn't really believe that Hume knew what he was talking about, did you? That's weird. He didn't evade/escape the cognitive facts either. That's not weird. That's a fact!
Continued from Post #3608: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087964/.
.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
sealybobo said:
5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
No fool, we are constantly seeking him.
No fool, we are constantly seeking him.
Well, this one's easy: there you go again presupposing God's existence as you claim to know something absolutely, as if from on high, about something that only God could know anything about, as you argue that God doesn't exist That's weird.
So you believe God exists after all, eh? I thought you said we couldn't know or rationally believe such a thing. That's weird.
You sure do keep jumping from one belief to another a lot, and that's, well, you know, weird.
It looks like you're trying to evade/escape something you can't. That's weird.
You didn't really believe that Hume knew what he was talking about, did you? That's weird. He didn't evade/escape the cognitive facts either. That's not weird. That's a fact!
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #6 and #7
Continued from Post #3611: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10088062/.
.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
sealybobo said:
sealybobo's #6 is really a #6 and a #7, a redundancy in which he tells us that he doesn't believe that God exists, not once but twice, except, as I've shown, when he does tell us that God exists. That's weird.
(sealybobo, you really do need to make up your mind here, instead if jumping back and forth, because that's weird.)
However, this denial of God's existence is asserted against a specific theological system of thought, which is off topic. That's weird.
But I'll address it.
sealybobo says Jesus is not God. Is sealybobo claiming to be something akin to God again? Sure looks like it. That’s weird.
Now, I've already shown that sealybobo's position is irrational, logically contradictory and paradoxical, so we may understand why he denies God's existence in one instance and presupposes God's existence in the next. Try as he might, He can't escape the imperatives of the laws of thought.
I've shown that the only rational position to take is that God must be, that this conclusion is well-founded, formally justified under the conventional standards of logic. So the notion that God has in fact revealed Himself directly in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth is well within the range of all that is rational and, therefore, possible.
If Jesus of Nazareth is in fact God incarnate as the testimony of the Apostles and others holds, we would expect the very kinds of displays of power and authority attributed to Him.
But sealybobo holds that this historical testimony is the stuff of fairytales.
"WE GOT NO PROOF!", he says.
But we do have testimonial evidence. As for "proof," that's in the eye of the beholder, so let's take a look at the eye of this beholder, because there's something weird about it.
We weren't there, he says!
That’s right! sealybobo wasn't there to observe these events, which are of a historical and empirical nature according to the testimonial evidence, so how does sealybobo know that they are fairytales? Is sealybobo hinting that he was there after telling us that he wasn't? That's weird.
But sealybobo doesn't just tell us that the reason he doesn't believe the testimony is because he wasn't there, except when he implies that he was there, which is weird, he tells us that even if he had been there, he would find that the testimony were all lies or delusions anyway, for he tells us that such displays of power and authority are unbelievable.
But why would such things be unbelievable? Would these not constitute the very kind of evidence that sealybobo demands for God existence? Though why the magnificent display of the cosmos and the logical facts of human cognition are not already enough for him is, well, you know, weird. . . . Oh, that's right, because according to sealybobo, God doesn't exist in the first place.
Hence, sealybobo’s #6 is God doesn’t exist!
Hence, sealybobo’s implied #7 is God doesn’t exist!
But as I've already shown, God does exist according the laws of human thought, and sealybobo's position is logically contradictory and paradoxical, the stuff of blind, unjustified faith. That's weird.
Continued from Post #3611: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10088062/.
.
Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/.
sealybobo said:
6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.
We're supposed to believe an unbelievable fairy tale? WE GET NO PROOF? Notice how sure the author is of point 6? As if he saw it for himself? This is what makes Christians just as dumb as every other religion. Mormons, Islam, Greek Gods, Jehova. Maybe their story is the best one of them all but its still just made up yet this guy uses the Jesus story as proof a god exists. Show me a miracle god!
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.
We're supposed to believe an unbelievable fairy tale? WE GET NO PROOF? Notice how sure the author is of point 6? As if he saw it for himself? This is what makes Christians just as dumb as every other religion. Mormons, Islam, Greek Gods, Jehova. Maybe their story is the best one of them all but its still just made up yet this guy uses the Jesus story as proof a god exists. Show me a miracle god!
sealybobo's #6 is really a #6 and a #7, a redundancy in which he tells us that he doesn't believe that God exists, not once but twice, except, as I've shown, when he does tell us that God exists. That's weird.
(sealybobo, you really do need to make up your mind here, instead if jumping back and forth, because that's weird.)
However, this denial of God's existence is asserted against a specific theological system of thought, which is off topic. That's weird.
But I'll address it.
sealybobo says Jesus is not God. Is sealybobo claiming to be something akin to God again? Sure looks like it. That’s weird.
Now, I've already shown that sealybobo's position is irrational, logically contradictory and paradoxical, so we may understand why he denies God's existence in one instance and presupposes God's existence in the next. Try as he might, He can't escape the imperatives of the laws of thought.
I've shown that the only rational position to take is that God must be, that this conclusion is well-founded, formally justified under the conventional standards of logic. So the notion that God has in fact revealed Himself directly in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth is well within the range of all that is rational and, therefore, possible.
If Jesus of Nazareth is in fact God incarnate as the testimony of the Apostles and others holds, we would expect the very kinds of displays of power and authority attributed to Him.
But sealybobo holds that this historical testimony is the stuff of fairytales.
"WE GOT NO PROOF!", he says.
But we do have testimonial evidence. As for "proof," that's in the eye of the beholder, so let's take a look at the eye of this beholder, because there's something weird about it.
We weren't there, he says!
That’s right! sealybobo wasn't there to observe these events, which are of a historical and empirical nature according to the testimonial evidence, so how does sealybobo know that they are fairytales? Is sealybobo hinting that he was there after telling us that he wasn't? That's weird.
But sealybobo doesn't just tell us that the reason he doesn't believe the testimony is because he wasn't there, except when he implies that he was there, which is weird, he tells us that even if he had been there, he would find that the testimony were all lies or delusions anyway, for he tells us that such displays of power and authority are unbelievable.
But why would such things be unbelievable? Would these not constitute the very kind of evidence that sealybobo demands for God existence? Though why the magnificent display of the cosmos and the logical facts of human cognition are not already enough for him is, well, you know, weird. . . . Oh, that's right, because according to sealybobo, God doesn't exist in the first place.
Hence, sealybobo’s #6 is God doesn’t exist!
Hence, sealybobo’s implied #7 is God doesn’t exist!
But as I've already shown, God does exist according the laws of human thought, and sealybobo's position is logically contradictory and paradoxical, the stuff of blind, unjustified faith. That's weird.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
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.
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.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.
The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.
And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .
Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________
Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIs There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.
Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.
Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.
The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.
The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.
And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .
Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________
Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIs There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.
Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.
Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.
The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!
I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, G.T.
I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, G.T.
God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that logically proves the opposite of what it asserts. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible fact of human cognition.
Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.
2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like G.T., are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG argument actually proves.
No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!
Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!
And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves given the nature of the Object of the TAG are the following: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?
"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?
But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are biologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic? Hmm.
Why is that in our head as an axiom?
The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.
I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, G.T.
I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, G.T.
God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that logically proves the opposite of what it asserts. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible fact of human cognition.
Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.
2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like G.T., are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG argument actually proves.
No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!
Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!
And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves given the nature of the Object of the TAG are the following: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?
"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?
But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are biologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic? Hmm.
Why is that in our head as an axiom?
The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
"Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?"
And the answer is still no.
Yeah. Sort of like your nonsense that the absurdity from nothing, nothing comes constitutes an argument from ignorance as if logic or science formally proceed from absurdities?
Let's review your argument from ignorance again. . . .
Actually, that's nonsense. It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.
So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.
As I have written elsewhere:
Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.
All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!
In all forms of logic the proposition that from nothing, nothing comes would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.
All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!
In all forms of logic the proposition that from nothing, nothing comes would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.
Logic proceeds from justifiable true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.
The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!
Proceed, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 434
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 43K
- Replies
- 189
- Views
- 12K
D
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 44
- Replies
- 129
- Views
- 704
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 21
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8510
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-