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

[Boss]

As far as you're concerned, Unlimited power has The limitation of not being able to perceive.

No, unlimited power means there is no need for perceive. Also omniscience.... All-knowing, all-powerful.. unlimited in both. Please explain why it would need "sentience" as defined by your favorite source?

 

[Boss]

Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.

Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.

I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.

 

[G.T.]

As far as you're concerned, Unlimited power has The limitation of not being able to perceive.

No, unlimited power means there is no need for perceive. Also omniscience.... All-knowing, all-powerful.. unlimited in both. Please explain why it would need "sentience" as defined by your favorite source?

You're not even close to good at the verbal gymnastics you're apparently majoring in dude.

 

[G.T.]

Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.

Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.

I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.

Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others.

What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?

Stop that. You're flailing.

 

[G.T.]

One would think that the power of perception would fall under unlimited powers, but there are some damn good shrooms out there I guess.

 

[Boss]

Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.

Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.

I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.

Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others.

What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?

Stop that. You're flailing.

As I said... Post your favorite definition of "sentience" and then explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarily require "sentience" as you claimed. I am arguing that God does not require the attribute of sentience, as this applies to physical carbon-based life forms.

But I am willing to listen to your argument, if you'll ever present it.

 

[Boss]

One would think that the power of perception would fall under unlimited powers, but there are some damn good shrooms out there I guess.

Perception? What would God need this for?

per·cep·tion
pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

You continue describing a human attribute which you somehow think GOD needs to have.

Why is that?

 

[G.T.]

Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.

Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.

I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.

Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others.

What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?

Stop that. You're flailing.

As I said... Post your favorite definition of "sentience" and then explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarily require "sentience" as you claimed. I am arguing that God does not require the attribute of sentience, as this applies to physical carbon-based life forms.

But I am willing to listen to your argument, if you'll ever present it.

Your position is a waste of fucking time.

How is that?

A being that can't perceive does not have unlimited power.

Perception is an asset, you're trying to twist it into a liability just to fulfill your ocd to argue with people.

Gluck with that.

 

[sealybobo]

By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience

No you don't. YOU assume sentience because you can't imagine anything else. Nothing implies a creator requires sentience. The Creator is omnipotent, which trumps sentience.

GT's right. You are starting to lose it.

 

[G.T.]

One would think that the power of perception would fall under unlimited powers, but there are some damn good shrooms out there I guess.

Perception? What would God need this for?

per·cep·tion
pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

You continue describing a human attribute which you somehow think GOD needs to have.

Why is that?

Play your neener neener game with a crack rock that talks after you smoked some shrooms as a pregame.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.

The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.

hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.

So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.

Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!. But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God. Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.

Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!

Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?

What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.

Actually, the connotation I'm alluding to is the philosophical construct of sentience: a Being that like us has interior, subjective experiences. Bear in mind, the unabridged, metaphysical definition comes to the fore: "In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia")”; sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia"."

Well, God would have to have self-awareness to begin with, or He would be something less than the sentience of human beings. Sentience, of course, is not the same thing as self-awareness; rather, it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.

The notion arises when persons think about #3 or #4. What does it mean to say that God would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness?

The very highest possibility for the idea of God would be a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that humans have and then some. God would have to be greater than the sentience and the subsequent self-awareness of human beings. The nature of a finite being's self-awareness in the face of God is that of a creature, in our case, a rather ingenious creature, a creative creature. How much more powerfully creative is the consciousness of God?

Answer: Unparalleled.

So when I write that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, thus, non-contingent sentient Being of infinitely unparalleled, absolute perfection, I'm necessarily talking about a Being Who from the foundation of self-awareness on up is unsurpassed in greatness: a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that human beings have infinitely magnified. For no creature can be greater than the Creator. For a finite being to subjectively presuppose that God be anything less than that is to beg the question.

But note something very important: nowhere in The Seven Things do we find the term sentience.

Why wouldn't God have interior sensations, such as subject-object impressions and feelings? Why presuppose that the Creator of lesser beings which have these things wouldn't also have them first? This possibility cannot be logically ruled out, no more than the possibility of God's existence can be logically ruled out or the possibility of God's unparalleled greatness can be logically ruled out.

Also note that there's never anything assumed about God as such in The Seven Things. Objectively apparent cognitions regarding the idea of God in our minds, in terms of logical possibility, simply come to the fore, due to the imperatives of the universally apparent laws of organic thought.

Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case, would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics that do not violate any standard of perfection just because humans have them in a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite reflections of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.

Clearly the latter is logically possible.

As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of certain cognitive attributes or powers that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility: welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

Oops.

It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

No one escapes The Seven Things.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.

Well, the Bible doesn't use the term sentient, but it certainly asserts that He has sentience and/or is sentient, experiences interior sensations like feelings and subject-object impressions.

 

[amrchaos]

Sentient is defined to be the ability to percieve or feel things.

If the Judaic God is not sentient, he can not become angry, jealous, or even care.

I can see this in the book of Job.

But the story of Noah, The reasons for the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, the commandment of not having any other gods before him.....etc.

Are we talking about the same God here, Boss? What qualities of your God that leads to the above if it is not sentient.

By the way, even if you do remove sentient from the Judaic God, I still hve some problems with it. Just letting you know ahead of time.

 

[amrchaos]

Since we have open that can of worms "What are the characteristics of God" I do remember one claim about God posed by a Catholic Nun

God is Love


Use that as the definition of God. It exist. I've experienced it in many forms. Observed it being administered to others. At times, wish that was all God actually was.

Sure ends a lot of debates about God. Too bad it is not universally accepted

 

[Hollie]

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.

Well, the Bible doesn't use the term sentient, but it certainly assert that He has sentience and/or is sentient, experiences interior sensations like feelings and subject-object impressions.

As the christian polytheistic gawds are of human invention, it is not surprising that they were given human attributes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.

Well, the Bible doesn't use the term sentient, but it certainly assert that He has sentience and/or is sentient, experiences interior sensations like feelings and subject-object impressions.

As the christian polytheistic gawds are of human invention, it is not surprising that they were given human attributes.

Given by humans to God or given by God to humans. Welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

See Post #3811.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Good luck in finding sentients at the end of a sequence of seemingly non-sentient things.

No need for all that. Just don't beg the question and the objective facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are self-evident.

Just when you guys thought I'd lost my mind, just in the nick of time, I find your minds for you (Post #3811):

Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case, would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics that do not violate any standard of perfection just because humans have them to a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite reflections of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.

Clearly the latter is logically possible, cannot be logically ruled out.

As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of certain cognitive attributes or powers that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility: welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

Oops.

It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

No one escapes The Seven Things.
​

 

[Hollie]

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.

Well, the Bible doesn't use the term sentient, but it certainly assert that He has sentience and/or is sentient, experiences interior sensations like feelings and subject-object impressions.

As the christian polytheistic gawds are of human invention, it is not surprising that they were given human attributes.

Given by humans to God or given by God to humans. Welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

See Post #3811.

The seven fraudulent things.

I have no use for your club of the damaged.

 

[Hollie]

Good luck in finding sentients at the end of a sequence of seemingly non-sentient things.

No need for all that. Just don't beg the question and the objective facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are self-evident.

Just when you guys thought I'd lost my mind, just in the nick of time, I find your minds for you (Post #3811):

Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case, would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics that do not violate any standard of perfection just because humans have them in a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite reflections of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.

Clearly the latter is logically possible, cannot be logically ruled out.

As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of certain cognitive attributes or powers that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility: welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

Oops.

It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

No one escapes The Seven Things.
​

The seven fraudulent things of the religious zealot.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!


But, really, what caused the singularity?

"So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!

.

are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy


"But, really, what caused the singularity"

the end becoming the beginning ....

.

I just answered that question. Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?

Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?

See. This is what I'm talking about. This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have. They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.

Answer: No the 7 things do not have an objective voice because much of it is the subjective opinion of the poster. To say "Objectively speaking" is really to talk about nothing when referencing the 7 things.

More meaningless philosophical bullshit. Objectively speaking is an idiom that means that the speaker's/thinker's personal bias is irrelevant to the apparent fact of the matter.

You alleged that I assume in the expression of #3 of The Seven Things that God is sentient, which is what you've been going on about. There is no such assumption expressed in #3. You assumed that. You assumed something not expressed at all. I wonder why. You don't know why or how you did that?

That's weird.

By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience
Then by referencing what you mean by creator, you use sentience in your very questionable argument for sentience in creator.

Now you argue that you did not imply sentience. So does that mean you dictated that concept?

Again, you can use an open definition that does not assume anything.

Yet you wish to argue a point that you tried to prove and then try to place the burden on me to disprove it when what I suggested avoids such argument.

It is like your 7 things is meant to cause argument, and your tactic is try to bully(although, highly unsuccessively) others into accepting your position.

Nope, sorry. You spoke too soon again. Be careful with appearances.

There is rhyme to my reason.
As everything comes in its season.
A time to think.
A time to reflect.
A time to stop and say:
"Let the objective apprehensions,
The logical distinctions,
The simple facts of existence have their way."

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


The term sentience does not appear in The Seven Things, but. . . .

Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case, would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics that do not violate any standard of perfection just because humans have them to a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite reflections of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.

Clearly the latter is logically possible.

As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of certain cognitive attributes or powers that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility: welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

Oops.

It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

No one escapes The Seven Things. ​

The lead of this revealing Post #3811:

Actually, the connotation I'm alluding to is the philosophical construct of sentience: a Being that like us has interior, subjective experiences. Bear in mind, the unabridged, metaphysical definition comes to the fore: "In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia")”; sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience


Well, God would have to have self-awareness to begin with, or He would be something less than the sentience of human beings. Sentience, of course, is not the same thing as self-awareness; rather, it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.

The notion arises when persons think about #3 or #4. What does it mean to say that God would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness?

The very highest possibility for the idea of God would be a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that humans have and then some. God would have to be greater than the sentience and the subsequent self-awareness of human beings. The nature of a finite being's self-awareness in the face of God is that of a creature, in our case, a rather ingenious creature, a creative creature. How much more powerfully creative is the consciousness of God?

Answer: Unparalleled.

So when I write that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, thus, non-contingent sentient Being of infinitely unparalleled, absolute perfection, I'm necessarily talking about a Being Who from the foundation of self-awareness on up is unsurpassed in greatness: a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that human beings have infinitely magnified. For no creature can be greater than the Creator. For a finite being to subjectively presuppose that God be anything less than that is to beg the question.

But note something very important: nowhere in The Seven Things do we find the term sentience.

Why wouldn't God have interior sensations, such as subject-object impressions and feelings? Why presuppose that the Creator of lesser beings which have these things wouldn't also have them first? This possibility cannot be logically ruled out, no more than the possibility of God's existence can be logically ruled out or the possibility of God's unparalleled greatness can be logically ruled out.

Also note that there's never anything assumed about God as such in The Seven Things. Objectively apparent cognitions regarding the idea of God in our minds, in terms of logical possibility, simply come to the fore, due to the imperatives of the universally apparent laws of organic thought.

. . .​