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

[G.T.]

an atheist or unbeliever is still bound by deifnitions and tersm. If you odn't believe in God, ergo, you have God does not exist.

ugh, no.


For so many reasons, no. Epic logic fail man.

Unbelief in something has no bearing on whether or not that something exists. Your "ergo" is plainly wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can be an agnostic atheist.

You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.

That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,

you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.

 

[sealybobo]

The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.

How is blind faith dedicated to evil?

That's what it all boils down to.

Agnosticism = honesty.

Everything else is reduced to presupposition and naked assertion.

Does it matter?

And so I guess being an agnostic atheist means I do not know for sure 100% there is or isn't a god, but I lean on the side that says there is no god, because based on all the information I have available to me, it seems most likely man invented god when we were very primitive. And the only reason god is still around is because it has been hard wired into our thinking and most of us can't imagine all this came to be without a creator.

And these primitive ancient ancestors of ours came up with a lot of wild fascinating stories. Do you believe them? I don't. So I lean on the side of atheist.

And as far as going to hell for not being a christian or Muslim? LOL. Funny shit.

I think that it most certainly matters, these discussions are specific and so in order to have sound conclusions, you should want them to be completely justifiable.

I'm an agnostic that leans toward there being a god - but not a religious god, or even a cognitive or "living" god.

My definition of god would be "whatever started all of this shit - whether it be a chemical process, a spaghetti monster or my underwear."

I lean that way, but wouldn't say that I've concluded it or that I'm decided.

And so you and I will both try to keep an open mind and keep looking. Until we know we'll admit we don't know.

Change the subject. One thing I use to think is that if people didn't believe in god or hell, maybe some people at the end of their lives might go murder a bunch of people they don't like. If you don't believe in hell what is there to stop them? I could never do it even though I don't believe in hell.

Or, maybe the fact that I don't know for sure helps keep me a moral person? I can't say for sure there is no hell but something deep inside me says that if there is, bad people go. So maybe just maybe the concept of god is a necessary thing, even for agnostic atheists. If we are honest and admit we don't know for sure then maybe even if there is only a .00001% chance there is, maybe that's enough to keep us from taking a chance and being immoral. I don't totally disbelieve karma so hey, you never know right?

 

[G.T.]

You can be an agnostic atheist.

You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.

That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,

you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.

You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.

 

[BillyP]

I am, therefore He is.

You am therefore you am.

By the way everyone, this guys logic is exactly how our very primitive ancestors came up with god. Great logic, huh?

Does that mean "if God is does that mean god's creator is?"

Why does you existing prove god exists?

Can someone please translate this into English?

You said you are therefore he is. What proof is that?

I am here. That's proof.

 

[G.T.]

The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.

How is blind faith dedicated to evil?

That's what it all boils down to.

Agnosticism = honesty.

Everything else is reduced to presupposition and naked assertion.

Does it matter?

And so I guess being an agnostic atheist means I do not know for sure 100% there is or isn't a god, but I lean on the side that says there is no god, because based on all the information I have available to me, it seems most likely man invented god when we were very primitive. And the only reason god is still around is because it has been hard wired into our thinking and most of us can't imagine all this came to be without a creator.

And these primitive ancient ancestors of ours came up with a lot of wild fascinating stories. Do you believe them? I don't. So I lean on the side of atheist.

And as far as going to hell for not being a christian or Muslim? LOL. Funny shit.

I think that it most certainly matters, these discussions are specific and so in order to have sound conclusions, you should want them to be completely justifiable.

I'm an agnostic that leans toward there being a god - but not a religious god, or even a cognitive or "living" god.

My definition of god would be "whatever started all of this shit - whether it be a chemical process, a spaghetti monster or my underwear."

I lean that way, but wouldn't say that I've concluded it or that I'm decided.

And so you and I will both try to keep an open mind and keep looking. Until we know we'll admit we don't know.

Change the subject. One thing I use to think is that if people didn't believe in god or hell, maybe some people at the end of their lives might go murder a bunch of people they don't like. If you don't believe in hell what is there to stop them? I could never do it even though I don't believe in hell.

Or, maybe the fact that I don't know for sure helps keep me a moral person? I can't say for sure there is no hell but something deep inside me says that if there is, bad people go. So maybe just maybe the concept of god is a necessary thing, even for agnostic atheists. If we are honest and admit we don't know for sure then maybe even if there is only a .00001% chance there is, maybe that's enough to keep us from taking a chance and being immoral. I don't totally disbelieve karma so hey, you never know right?

I guess I think the thing stopping them is that in my opinion morals exist outside the threat of consequences.

 

[G.T.]

I am, therefore He is.

You am therefore you am.

By the way everyone, this guys logic is exactly how our very primitive ancestors came up with god. Great logic, huh?

Does that mean "if God is does that mean god's creator is?"

Why does you existing prove god exists?

Can someone please translate this into English?

You said you are therefore he is. What proof is that?

I am here. That's proof.

No, it's not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can be an agnostic atheist.

You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.

That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,

you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.

You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.

The standard is beyond all reasonable doubt, which happens to be a satisfactory standard among reasonable people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can be an agnostic atheist.

You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.

That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,

you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.

You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.

Can I not reject the young earth belief and believe that the Earth is several billion years old because I cannot prove that the evidence for a billions year old Earth might all be an illusion created by God, or perhaps by the Devil?

Must I declare that I don't have any idea how old the Earth is because I can't eliminate every cockeyed farfetched possibility imaginable?

 

[G.T.]

You can be an agnostic atheist.

You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.

That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,

you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.

You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.

The standard is beyond all reasonable doubt, which happens to be a satisfactory standard among reasonable people.

I guess I'd conflate reasonable and possible in this instance and call it a day.

I understand that possible and reasonable are very different entities, but I'm not even interested in this pseudo side discussion over atheist vs. agnostic atheist.

Doesn't interest me in the least.

 

[sealybobo]

I am, therefore He is.

You am therefore you am.

By the way everyone, this guys logic is exactly how our very primitive ancestors came up with god. Great logic, huh?

Does that mean "if God is does that mean god's creator is?"

Why does you existing prove god exists?

Can someone please translate this into English?

You said you are therefore he is. What proof is that?

I am here. That's proof.

So am I but I need more proof than that. So you are basically admitting BLIND faith, because you need absolutely no evidence to believe.

A mosquito is here too. I see a fly on the wall too. OMG a maggot in the shit I took out back last night! That's proof god exists! I am the maggots god because I created him. So, something must have created me, right?

So, who created the guy who created me? Oh yea, he's eternal. Waka waka.

 

[G.T.]

You can be an agnostic atheist.

You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.

That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,

you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.

You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.

Can I not reject the young earth belief and believe that the Earth is several billion years old because I cannot prove that the evidence for a billions year old Earth might all be an illusion created by God, or perhaps by the Devil?

Must I declare that I don't have any idea how old the Earth is because I can't eliminate every cockeyed farfetched possibility imaginable?

Not interested in going this far off course just to agree or disagree to call someone an agnostic or an agnostic atheist.

It's not very important to me, just saving you time homey.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Here's another resource for those who are still confused.
Omnipotent God

Omnipotent God – What is Omnipotence?
We have an omnipotent God. He has the ability and power to anything (omni=all; potent=powerful). This power is exercised effortlessly. A good example of God’s omnipotence is in the name el shaddai, which means “self-sufficient” or “almighty.” God’s power is unlimited.

A proper definition is given by Thiessen: “God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections.”1

Ephesians 1:18-23 says, “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”

“Since He has at His command all the power in the universe, the Lord God omnipotent can do anything as easily as anything else. All His acts are done without effort. He expends no energy that must be replenished. His self-sufficiency makes it unnecessary for Him to look outside of Himself for a renewal of strength. All the power required to do all that He wills to do lies in undiminished fullness in His own infinite being.”2 – Tozer
It is important to note that God cannot do anything that is contradictory or that is contrary to His nature. For example, God cannot lie, even though He has the power to do anything. Hebrews 6:18 says, “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.”

“Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent

“Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent

Your God created evil! How is that consistent with being "good"? Then there is just your everyday pain and suffering from childhood leukemia, spontaneous abortions, Alzheimers, etc, etc all of which your God created.

And for the 2nd time quoting your bible is self referencing and harms your credibility.

 

[sealybobo]

You can be an agnostic atheist.

You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.

That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,

you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.

You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.

Can I not reject the young earth belief and believe that the Earth is several billion years old because I cannot prove that the evidence for a billions year old Earth might all be an illusion created by God, or perhaps by the Devil?

Must I declare that I don't have any idea how old the Earth is because I can't eliminate every cockeyed farfetched possibility imaginable?

Not interested in going this far off course just to agree or disagree to call someone an agnostic or an agnostic atheist.

It's not very important to me, just saving you time homey.

I think we all understand now that no atheist is really an "atheist" because there is no way to know 100% for sure.

The only people who claim to be 100% are theists who say god came and talked to the people who started their religions thousands or hundreds of years ago. Mormons started in 1800 when god talked to Joseph Smith, supposedly.

So no one can be a theist then either because they too would have had to be there back when god talked to us. If not they are taking the stories on faith.

They would have to be agnostic theists. LOL.

 

[Justin Davis]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

 

[sealybobo]

Here's another resource for those who are still confused.
Omnipotent God

Omnipotent God – What is Omnipotence?
We have an omnipotent God. He has the ability and power to anything (omni=all; potent=powerful). This power is exercised effortlessly. A good example of God’s omnipotence is in the name el shaddai, which means “self-sufficient” or “almighty.” God’s power is unlimited.

A proper definition is given by Thiessen: “God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections.”1

Ephesians 1:18-23 says, “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”

“Since He has at His command all the power in the universe, the Lord God omnipotent can do anything as easily as anything else. All His acts are done without effort. He expends no energy that must be replenished. His self-sufficiency makes it unnecessary for Him to look outside of Himself for a renewal of strength. All the power required to do all that He wills to do lies in undiminished fullness in His own infinite being.”2 – Tozer
It is important to note that God cannot do anything that is contradictory or that is contrary to His nature. For example, God cannot lie, even though He has the power to do anything. Hebrews 6:18 says, “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.”

“Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent

“Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent

Your God created evil! How is that consistent with being "good"? Then there is just your everyday pain and suffering from childhood leukemia, spontaneous abortions, Alzheimers, etc, etc all of which your God created.

.

Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease – all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

 

[sealybobo]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

You just don't need as much evidence as we do. I would hate for you to be a juror if I was on trial.

Stop thinking? It is you who has made up your mind without having sufficient evidence. And what about the evidence that shows religion was made up? How do you ignore all that scientific evidence? Instead you go with the idea that an invisible man made you and cares about you blablabla?

We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.” – Carl Sagan

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

 

[sealybobo]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am

Exodus 3

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”

And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

This is not proof of a Biblical God.

You had to have known that, though.

You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.

You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you

Reductio ad absurdum!

 

[G.T.]

The theory of biocentrism is something that I WANT to be true.