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

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

[Edit: it just occurred to me that some might be confused by the statement that in constructive logic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are suspended, yet analyzed in constructive logic. Actually, all such axioms are still held to be valid in constructive logic and most of them can be assigned a truth value because most of them are either mathematical in nature and/or are tautologies that pertain to material existents. Hence, these can be empirically supported. Hence, most of them are not suspended as axioms. Axioms that pertain to transcendental potentialities, however, are suspended as axioms, though still held to be valid and can be analyzed, albeit, only on the bases that they hold logically, but may or may not be true ultimately.

Bear in mind that constructive logic is the logic of science . . . mostly, but because it is still in the realm of logic, not science as such, it still proves or negates. So we are still permitted to analyze a broader number of propositions for the purpose of producing credible scientific hypotheses for science in constructive logic, while science is always limited to the dynamics of verification and falsification.

Though I did in fact make this distinction emphatically clear in other posts, I neglected to do so here. Sorry for the confusion.]

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!

Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 207 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 233 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

GT Continues His Shape-Shifting Ways


The following is the first post in which I refuted GT's last conceivable objection, in which I left the door slightly open for him to squeeze through so that the follow-up post would close it.

Now, I'm not playing games with anyone. It's just that the apprehension of these things is difficult for us all, for we live in a world of dreams hammering us with mindless slogans repeated over and over again until they become axiomatic truths in our minds, though they be utter tripe. So we don't think, we react. The objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin stand, whether, objectively speaking, they be illusions or not, i.e., not real at all beyond the confines of our minds due to the necessities of organic logic. I cannot prove God's existence to anyone, but I can prove, rather, the facts of human consciousness prove, that "The Seven Things" are absolute, inescapable cognitions that, at the very least, exist in our minds and are true in our minds every time we think about them.

This is the refutation, posted earlier, that GT is still evading:

The idea of God is hardwired! I didn't change anything! And you just affirmed that fact.

GT writes: "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True."

Yeah. That is true, isn't it?

GT writes: "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."

Changed it? No. I took you by the hand and led to the next step that you still need to take with me.

These statements are true and are one and the same thing!

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) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired. Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean tabula rasa has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.

Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being cannot logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!

Oh wait! My bad. You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter. Oh, well, moving on. . . .

Now, this axiom of human cognition, this logical proof, does not constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that God exists nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.

The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought is an axiom of the same nature as that of 2 + 2 = 4!

But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition! You keep arguing that absolute a priori intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.

Oh, wait! My bad.

Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic a priories of logic and mathematics sans the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading. Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!

And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the fact and the nature of this cognition.

Oh, wait! My bad again.

You did just acknowledge it for what it is! The idea of God is in our brains! That cognition is hardwired, just like the other a priories concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent a priories, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.

Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

I have a better suggestion. You first.

1. Why don't you post your nonsense that well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning.

All human beings are mortal beings.
Irishmen are human beings.
Irishmen are mortal beings.

Deductive reasoning does not preclude scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., it does not preclude ordinary empirical data. The essence of deductive reasoning is the reduction of general truths to specific conclusions, typically, 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.

With that in mind, is the above syllogism a deductive argument or an example of inductive reasoning? Shoot. I kind of gave that way, but you needed the help.

Here's some more help for ya:

A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

Syllogism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic,[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.[2]
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. As a result, induction can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty. Note, however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below). *

Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

*By the way, that's why I kept writing generally regarding the normal progression of inductive reasoning before I hunted this up for you, as in some rare instances, statistical probabilities, it moves in the other direction.

Where exactly did you get the notion that deductive reasoning precludes scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., premises about ordinary empirical data?

Crickets chriping

2. Post your silly claim that the cosmological order and its constituents are not the very essence of the evidence for God's existence.

Try to convince them that the classic proofs/arguments for God's existence aren't premised on that fact. That should be interesting.

3. Post your silly claim that God is not objectively understood to be the sentient Creator in the light of the purely RATIONAL axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind.

4. Why don't regale the site's members with the idiocy that the TAG is an example of inductive reasoning, as you conflate the rational-empirical dichotomy with the deductive-inductive dichotomy. (You don't even know what the essence of your error is, do you? the error that would necessarily make all arguments inductive. How could that be, dummy?)

A transcendental argument is a deductive philosophical argument which takes a manifest feature of experience as granted, and articulates that which must be the case so that experience as such is possible.[1][2] Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification that are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments


Transcendental arguments - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Then, after you're laughed off the site, I'll post The Seven Things and defend them against all comers without fail.

Deal?

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

 

[G.T.]

Someone went psycho hose beast and copy paste copy paste copy paste happy last night. Holy shit.

Say it until you're blue in the face m.d., you still have no idea what axioms are, are clueless as to what begging the question is and its implications and continue to dip duck dodge showing any peer reviewed paper on TAG from "academia."


Poor fella.

 

[Hollie]

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

I have a better suggestion. You first.

1. Why don't you post your nonsense that well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning.

All human beings are mortal beings.
Irishmen are human beings.
Irishmen are mortal beings.

Deductive reasoning does not preclude scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., it does not preclude ordinary empirical data. The essence of deductive reasoning is the reduction of general truths to specific conclusions, typically, 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.

With that in mind, is the above syllogism a deductive argument or an example of inductive reasoning? Shoot. I kind of gave that way, but you needed the help.

Here's some more help for ya:

A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

Syllogism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic,[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.[2]
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. As a result, induction can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty. Note, however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below). *

Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

*By the way, that's why I kept writing generally regarding the normal progression of inductive reasoning before I hunted this up for you, as in some rare instances, statistical probabilities, it moves in the other direction.

Where exactly did you get the notion that deductive reasoning precludes scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., premises about ordinary empirical data?

Crickets chriping

2. Post your silly claim that the cosmological order and its constituents are not the very essence of the evidence for God's existence.

Try to convince them that the classic proofs/arguments for God's existence aren't premised on that fact. That should be interesting.

3. Post your silly claim that God is not objectively understood to be the sentient Creator in the light of the purely RATIONAL axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind.

4. Why don't regale the site's members with the idiocy that the TAG is an example of inductive reasoning, as you conflate the rational-empirical dichotomy with the deductive-inductive dichotomy. (You don't even know what the essence of your error is, do you? the error that would necessarily make all arguments inductive. How could that be, dummy?)

A transcendental argument is a deductive philosophical argument which takes a manifest feature of experience as granted, and articulates that which must be the case so that experience as such is possible.[1][2] Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification that are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments


Transcendental arguments - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Then, after you're laughed off the site, I'll post The Seven Things and defend them against all comers without fail.

Deal?

There's no deal to be had. The pointless TAG argument has repeatedly been shown to be a fraud.

Your nonsensical Seven Fraudulent Things has also been refuted as a fraud.

Both of the above statements are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


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!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

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)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

 

[G.T.]

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

I have a better suggestion. You first.

1. Why don't you post your nonsense that well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning.

All human beings are mortal beings.
Irishmen are human beings.
Irishmen are mortal beings.

Deductive reasoning does not preclude scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., it does not preclude ordinary empirical data. The essence of deductive reasoning is the reduction of general truths to specific conclusions, typically, 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.

With that in mind, is the above syllogism a deductive argument or an example of inductive reasoning? Shoot. I kind of gave that way, but you needed the help.

Here's some more help for ya:

A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

Syllogism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic,[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.[2]
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. As a result, induction can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty. Note, however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below). *

Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

*By the way, that's why I kept writing generally regarding the normal progression of inductive reasoning before I hunted this up for you, as in some rare instances, statistical probabilities, it moves in the other direction.

Where exactly did you get the notion that deductive reasoning precludes scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., premises about ordinary empirical data?

Crickets chriping

2. Post your silly claim that the cosmological order and its constituents are not the very essence of the evidence for God's existence.

Try to convince them that the classic proofs/arguments for God's existence aren't premised on that fact. That should be interesting.

3. Post your silly claim that God is not objectively understood to be the sentient Creator in the light of the purely RATIONAL axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind.

4. Why don't regale the site's members with the idiocy that the TAG is an example of inductive reasoning, as you conflate the rational-empirical dichotomy with the deductive-inductive dichotomy. (You don't even know what the essence of your error is, do you? the error that would necessarily make all arguments inductive. How could that be, dummy?)

A transcendental argument is a deductive philosophical argument which takes a manifest feature of experience as granted, and articulates that which must be the case so that experience as such is possible.[1][2] Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification that are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments


Transcendental arguments - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Then, after you're laughed off the site, I'll post The Seven Things and defend them against all comers without fail.

Deal?

There's no deal to be had. The pointless TAG argument has repeatedly been shown to be a fraud.

Your nonsensical Seven Fraudulent Things has also been refuted as a fraud.

Both of the above statements are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


The Seven PhonyThings

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


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!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

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)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well done. This would at least tell a rational person that "the seven laws of tourettes" are not axiomatic.

 

[amrchaos]

I disagree with hollie's #3 in a sense

It is possible for child raised in remote jungle in an atheistic environ to develop the fundamental theistic concepts of ancestral worshiping or even some forms of animism and some other even non-theistic concepts.

But to come up with a super sentient being that created this universe--with the characteristics and so forth described in Judaism, that in itself will require a lot more than imagination...

By the way--I still think that 3) is to be changed to "I exist"

I don't want to mislead any schizophrenics to think their old friend Bob is real outside the confines of their minds. But of course, using some of these arguments, Bob is real and everybody that claimed he was not were lying.

 

[Hollie]

I disagree with hollie's #3 in a sense

It is possible for child raised in remote jungle in an atheistic environ to develop the fundamental theistic concepts of ancestral worshiping or even some forms of animism and some other even non-theistic concepts.

But to come up with a super sentient being that created this universe--with the characteristics and so forth described in Judaism, that in itself will require a lot more than imagination...

By the way--I still think that 3) is to be changed to "I exist"

I don't want to mislead any schizophrenics to think their old friend Bob is real outside the confines of their minds. But of course, using some of these arguments, Bob is real and everybody that claimed he was not were lying.

I understand your disagreement and it may, in part, be my fault in terms of definitions. I used the term "theism" with specific regard to the context of "god" in terms of Western conceptions of god.

The source for theistic belief finds its definition in a supreme being, in western culture known as "god". In this creature, logically impossible to start off with, unknowable at best to end with, humanity has built great civilizations, campaigned bloody and countless wars, and allowed divisions and bigotries to hold sway.

The Western conceptions of polytheistic god(s) (De' heyzeus ----> a "holy spirit" ----> the Big Cheese) have been, like many of the core issues of theism, defined without regard to authority, proofs, or evidence. Effectively, what any single person chooses to say a god is, that god is; the more people agree on some vague referents to the god in question, the more likely that god will be considered the true (sic) god.

I will grant your that a child raised in remote jungle may well invent various conceptions of gods to represent elements of the natural world, consistent to what humanity has historically done. As we know, humanity has ascribed god-hood to both animate and inanimate objects. My focus was to explore the concept of the specific Western polytheistic gods, how the fabrication of them relies solely on the irrationality of faith, and how gods, far from being the creators of humanity, are actually at the mercy of humanity.

 

[sealybobo]

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/.

3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why?

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.

I was watching a show on monkeys this weekend. After watching the show, I'm sure even they wonder and might even ponder to themselves how/why and MAYBE they even think of us as gods. I don't care what you say. The more I discover, the more I realize there is no god. The more you talk, the more I believe there is no god. I watch radical islamists on 60 minutes and I realize what a crock of shit this god concept is and how bad it is for us. I don't care that it makes you feel better. God also makes the suicide bomber feel better about what he's doing. You are all stupid. I can tell we are evolving as a society. Sure every once in awhile we take a step back, like when we went to war in Iraq. I thought after we easily wiped out the Kosovo army that we would never have to send young Americans into war and that kind of war was over, but boy did we take a step or two back to the 1960's with that one.

Anyways, my point is, many Americans and Europeans don't believe in God. I was watching this show Tracing Your Roots on PBS and they helped this famous asian chef trace his roots back to before Christ. I wondered, how come the asians didn't get word of Christ or why didn't they all buy the story. They say everyone knew and heard about Jesus. Why didn't the asians all go along? Probably because it never happened. And where is their story of when god visited them? And look at the Arab story. Very clever, just like the New Testament. Suckers!

 

[sealybobo]

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

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

The rest is just horse shit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since I thunk it, it must be true.

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

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

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

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

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

Implicit atheism

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

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

That site I link you to has all the evidence all laid out for you. It's a tough thing to prove to someone that their imaginary friend they have isn't real as you are proof of. If it's real in your head, how are you going to rationally take in all the information. You're probably already formulating your arguments before you even read the details. Where is the proof? That's another point that site makes. You're trying to shift the burden of proof onto us your imaginary friend is real? You sound like a radical islam guy. Try talking any sense to that guy and he just keeps on talking over you. Do you think he's even listening? Fuck no! He's so brainwashed. Just like you.

 

[Boss]

Boob, you're grandstanding again with babbling incoherent nonsense.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Show me a link

Boob, you're grandstanding again with babbling incoherent nonsense.

That's all I have for you today pal. Tomorrow is an election day. Stay home.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I disagree with hollie's #3 in a sense

It is possible for child raised in remote jungle in an atheistic environ to develop the fundamental theistic concepts of ancestral worshiping or even some forms of animism and some other even non-theistic concepts.

But to come up with a super sentient being that created this universe--with the characteristics and so forth described in Judaism, that in itself will require a lot more than imagination...

By the way--I still think that 3) is to be changed to "I exist"

I don't want to mislead any schizophrenics to think their old friend Bob is real outside the confines of their minds. But of course, using some of these arguments, Bob is real and everybody that claimed he was not were lying.

And we have more of the same philosophical bullshit of the irrational, cultural relativist kind: as if the laws of thought were not universal, as if it were not self-evident to all human beings that consciousness is of a higher order of being than inanimateness, as if it were not self-evident to all human beings that self-subsistence were not of a higher order of being than contingency, as if the objective ramifications of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin were not self-evident to all human beings, in other words, as if the denizens of more primitive cultures were not human beings and would be incapable of apprehending or fail to apprehend these necessary distinctions if put to them, whether they believe them to hold ultimately true or not, as if any person of a sound and developmentally mature mind would fail to recognize these objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions! . . . as if the relativist nincompoop could actually explain how two diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive propositions would both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference, as if the notion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes were not self-negating, for if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes must necessarily be absolutely false, logically.

"But it might be this some other or it might be that some other! I just can't objectively demonstrate that!"

That's right, you can't, and that's the point, the reality of the objective facts of human cognition, as opposed to your subjective, relativist mush, that flies right over your head.

 

[amrchaos]

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there. Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!

 

[BreezeWood]

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".

.

just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?

also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?

or that whatever exists had to be created ....

just curious.

.

 

[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 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.

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypothetical potentialities of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of Nuh-huh! It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh! Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, philosophical metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which we (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of the what and into the domain of the how and the why does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is my reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy. There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same a priori nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues: apply the very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue without flinching, if you dare, whether your ultimate bias be materialism, irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism, antirealism, hard solipsism or any other kind of stupid ism.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can? I understand the atheist mindset at a glance because I can be objective. It takes most atheists forever to grasp the essence of other viewpoints that their not used to thinking about. Hollie, especially, remains clueless. A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you people can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Are all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind capable of following the logic of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that #1 and #2 are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do: do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it: system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

Emily: It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

Rawlings: And its commonsensical persons like Boss and I who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!

 

[Hollie]

I disagree with hollie's #3 in a sense

It is possible for child raised in remote jungle in an atheistic environ to develop the fundamental theistic concepts of ancestral worshiping or even some forms of animism and some other even non-theistic concepts.

But to come up with a super sentient being that created this universe--with the characteristics and so forth described in Judaism, that in itself will require a lot more than imagination...

By the way--I still think that 3) is to be changed to "I exist"

I don't want to mislead any schizophrenics to think their old friend Bob is real outside the confines of their minds. But of course, using some of these arguments, Bob is real and everybody that claimed he was not were lying.

And we have more of the same philosophical bullshit of the irrational, cultural relativist kind: as if the laws of thought were not universal, as if it were not self-evident to all human beings that consciousness is of a higher order of being than inanimateness, as if it were not self-evident to all human beings that self-subsistence were not of a higher order of being than contingency, as if the objective ramifications of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin were not self-evident to all human beings, in other words, as if the denizens of more primitive cultures were not human beings and would be incapable of apprehending or fail to apprehend these necessary distinctions if put to them, whether they believe them to hold ultimately true or not, as if any person of a sound and developmentally mature mind would fail to recognize these objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions! . . . as if the relativist nincompoop could actually explain how two diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive propositions would both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference, as if the notion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes were not self-negating, for if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes must necessarily be absolutely false, logically.

"But it might be this some other or it might be that some other! I just can't objectively demonstrate that!"

That's right, you can't, and that's the point, the reality of the objective facts of human cognition, as opposed to your subjective, relativist mush, that flies right over your head.

A classic example of a Rawling'ism. A confused, meandering rant that makes no sense.

...."as if the notion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes were not self-negating, for if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes must necessarily be absolutely false, logically."

I'm afraid that the angry, self-hating fundamentalist crank doesn't understand his entirely subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of his polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions!

 

[Hollie]

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.

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of Nuh-huh! It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh! Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, philosophical metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which we (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of the what and into the domain of the how and the why does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is my reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy. There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same a priori nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues: apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be materialism, irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism, antirealism, hard solipsism or any other kind of stupid ism.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can? I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective. It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about. Hollie, especially, remains clueless. A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that #1 and #2 are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do: do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it: system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

Emily: It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

Rawlings: And its commonsensical persons like Boss and I who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!

I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own Rawling'isms. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.

This latest disaster of Rawling'isms was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.

 

[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 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.

This isn't reasonable skepticism. It's brain dead solipsism.

It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of Nuh-huh! It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh! Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, philosophical metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which we (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of the what and into the domain of the how and the why does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is my reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy. There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same a priori nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues: apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be materialism, irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism, antirealism, hard solipsism or any other kind of stupid ism.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can? I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective. It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about. Hollie, especially, remains clueless. A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that #1 and #2 are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do: do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it: system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

Emily: It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

Rawlings: And its commonsensical persons like Boss and I who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!

I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own Rawling'isms. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.

This latest disaster of Rawling'isms was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.

The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again. No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.