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

[Boss]

Who is this we you're going on about? There is no we. There's just you making a claim about the Bible that is literarily, texturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally, theologically, philosophically, historically and, therefore, patently false.

Yes, I posted the query yesterday... Where does the Bible state that God is a sentient being? IT was then deduced that this is not IN the Bible, but it's "inferred" ...well, that means it's someone's interpretation. So quite literally, texturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally, theologically, philosophically, historically... the Bible doesn't say God is a sentient being.

You can claim this belief on the basis of your interpretations of the Bible, I have no problem with that. I don't agree with your interpretations because I don't believe God needs human attributes.

You're perfectly capable of understanding the universal metaphysics of sentience, what this conceptual existent's essential nature is: the experience of mental impressions and emotions. You're perfectly aware of the fact that humans are sentient beings. You know that at the very least all other mammalians are sentient beings, that avialae are arguably sentient beings, all of whom experience mental impressions and emotions that varying in nature and are experienced at varying degrees of sophistication, respectively.

I understand humans and most mammals are sentient beings and can comprehend why that is an important thing for them. I understand mental impressions and emotions are experienced by sentient beings. I don't understand that God has to be a sentient being. You're failing to explain that.

I didn't drag the Bible into this. Others did, and the allegation that the Bible does not hold that God's consciousness includes sentience came to the fore. I merely rejected that nonsense: not on the subjective grounds of personal belief, but on the objective grounds of the empirically verifiable academics of the matter--the literary, textual, hermeneutical, doctrinal, theological, philosophical and historical facts.

The literary, textual, hermeneutical, doctrinal, theological, philosophical and historical facts are, you've not shown me that God is, or needs to be, a sentient being.

So why do you veer off the path of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin laid out by the imperatives of organic logic into the following, self-negating incoherency?

Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though [1] we are intrinsically aware that God exists. [2] The thing that is God is so far from anything we are capable of imagining that we simply don't have words to describe it. In absence of words, we attempt to apply the words we are familiar with in human context. We build God in the image of ourselves because that's what we can relate to and understand. Therefore, God has sentience, love, anger, caring, etc. Actual God has no reason or purpose for human characteristics. God is beyond any of that. These are characteristics God designed for humans and relate to humans and their interaction with a physical material universe. Think about that... God made sentience!

Well because the facts of human cognition have nothing to do with the attributes of God. Sentience and cognition are attributes God created for man (and some other mammals). You are trying to apply them to God and use logic as a rationale. But logic also doesn't apply because God created that too.

 

[emilynghiem]

Who is this we you're going on about? There is no we. There's just you making a claim about the Bible that is literarily, texturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally, theologically, philosophically, historically and, therefore, patently false.

Yes, I posted the query yesterday... Where does the Bible state that God is a sentient being? IT was then deduced that this is not IN the Bible, but it's "inferred" ...well, that means it's someone's interpretation. So quite literally, texturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally, theologically, philosophically, historically... the Bible doesn't say God is a sentient being.

You can claim this belief on the basis of your interpretations of the Bible, I have no problem with that. I don't agree with your interpretations because I don't believe God needs human attributes.

You're perfectly capable of understanding the universal metaphysics of sentience, what this conceptual existent's essential nature is: the experience of mental impressions and emotions. You're perfectly aware of the fact that humans are sentient beings. You know that at the very least all other mammalians are sentient beings, that avialae are arguably sentient beings, all of whom experience mental impressions and emotions that varying in nature and are experienced at varying degrees of sophistication, respectively.

I understand humans and most mammals are sentient beings and can comprehend why that is an important thing for them. I understand mental impressions and emotions are experienced by sentient beings. I don't understand that God has to be a sentient being. You're failing to explain that.

I didn't drag the Bible into this. Others did, and the allegation that the Bible does not hold that God's consciousness includes sentience came to the fore. I merely rejected that nonsense: not on the subjective grounds of personal belief, but on the objective grounds of the empirically verifiable academics of the matter--the literary, textual, hermeneutical, doctrinal, theological, philosophical and historical facts.

The literary, textual, hermeneutical, doctrinal, theological, philosophical and historical facts are, you've not shown me that God is, or needs to be, a sentient being.

So why do you veer off the path of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin laid out by the imperatives of organic logic into the following, self-negating incoherency?

Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though [1] we are intrinsically aware that God exists. [2] The thing that is God is so far from anything we are capable of imagining that we simply don't have words to describe it. In absence of words, we attempt to apply the words we are familiar with in human context. We build God in the image of ourselves because that's what we can relate to and understand. Therefore, God has sentience, love, anger, caring, etc. Actual God has no reason or purpose for human characteristics. God is beyond any of that. These are characteristics God designed for humans and relate to humans and their interaction with a physical material universe. Think about that... God made sentience!

Well because the facts of human cognition have nothing to do with the attributes of God. Sentience and cognition are attributes God created for man (and some other mammals). You are trying to apply them to God and use logic as a rationale. But logic also doesn't apply because God created that too.

As a retired Lutheran Pastor best put it,
if you can imagine God as a thing, God is probably not that thing.
Because God represents something infinite and beyond man,
any "thing" that we can imagine associated with God is not sufficient, and God is always greater.

It's not that these perceptions contradict God, but they limit God to a certain context.
So for God to be omnipresent, God transcends any given context.

We can show water in a vase, or in an ocean or river,
water in our bodies, water in air vapor or clouds.
All that IS still water, and doesn't contradict what water is,
but is still too limited for all the water that exist.

I think BreezeWood has similar issues with the Christian God
only focusing on certain relationships with God and not recognizing the bigger picture
of all people's way of relating to God and different meanings/contexts around God.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well because the facts of human cognition have nothing to do with the attributes of God. Sentience and cognition are attributes God created for man (and some other mammals). You are trying to apply them to God and use logic as a rationale. But logic also doesn't apply because God created that too.

:

Dear Boss:
1. I think MD would AGREE with you that God does not depend on human science and acceptance to exist, and certainly not on human definitions. that is not the reason for the logical approach.

2. Even if God created us, our minds and conscience, and the laws of science and human nature that works by reasoning through decisions yes/no true/false, etc.
we can still use that to come to an agreement on God.

Even if God created us and inspired the music we make,
we can still use that music to play a song together in harmony.

So let's just use the logic system to agree to terms.

And what I would add, is if you and BW or others don't agree to Christian concept of God = Creator
then let's talk about what God does = that holds the same position in BW's system or yours.

We can still do variations of the same proof to reach agreements between
different people who have a different "default" position or view of God/Life/Truth.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss' concept of God is not biblical.

I'm not arguing that my concept is or isn't biblical, but do you say it's not because it doesn't conform to your interpretation of biblical God or because the scripture says God is this sentient being you imagine? OR maybe you mean my interpretation is not a Christian interpretation?

I don't think my God contradicts the biblical concept, although it may not conform to man's interpretations of the biblical concept.

Well, as I said to you before, and I'll now say to the person you thoughtlessly agreed with your post: my personal beliefs about this matter are irrelevant to the objective facts of the matter, to the biblical facts and the logical facts of human cognition, and once again you are merely asserting a standard of belief that defies the universally objective standards of justified true belief/knowledge.

I have never once claimed to know things about God beyond what the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition divulge when brought to bear on the problems of existence and origin. Ever! Yet others, including you, including the atheists--for crying out loud!--have claimed to know all kinds of things about God as if from on high that are contrary to the very same imperatives of organic logic. So you veer off into some land of dreams that provides no discernibly objective standard of reason by which we might certify or verify the legitimacy of your claims.

All I need do is point at the fact that there is no legitimate reason to believe that God is lying to us.

Let me see if I have this right. God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?

You weirdly imply that humans anthropomorphize God by some magical means, in effect, though you simultaneously concede that we understand God the way we do because of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic.

Why do I say that you imply something magical?

Because you weirdly and unjustifiably close the door on the undeniable, the indisputable, the incontrovertible fact of the more reasonable possibility that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, beginning with the sentient characteristics of His consciousness, so that we could understand Him and commune with Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. That possibly CANNOT BE LOGICALLY RULED OUT!

It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Indeed, that is the only logically coherent and non-paradoxical position to take, as the denial of that necessarily declares God to be a liar, a God of confusion, a God of chaos . . . in the face of a mathematically well-ordered universe of physical laws apparently aligned with our organic logic.

So God is not the universal Principle of Identity, the very substance and the ground of the logic He endowed to His creature and to the creatures thereof, but is a liar Who devised a creation that misleads us at virtually every turn and about virtually everything that is ultimately true?

In other words, you claim that by these very same laws of thought we know God exists . . . yet everything that follows after The Seven Things suddenly, without warning, totally out of the blue, veers off into bullshit. God is just screwing with our minds.

No. What's happening here is that you veer off into bullshit all by yourself in spite of every indication that the opposite must be true about God and His creation.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

As a retired Lutheran Pastor best put it,
if you can imagine God as a thing, God is probably not that thing.
Because God represents something infinite and beyond man,
any "thing" that we can imagine associated with God is not sufficient, and God is always greater.

You just imagined God to be something, something infinitely great, in accordance with #4.

So it is false to say that we can't accurately and confidently imagine God to be what He is, isn't it?

We can and do understand what He is, don't we?

The fact that we cannot comprehend the totality of Him is just another fact that goes along with, not contradictorily so but consistently so, with that logical fact of His greatness, right?

Yeah! That's right.

And the only logical, non-paradoxical, position in accordance with the laws of thought is that our finite minds must have been designed to understand infinity, conceptually and mathematically, a fact of human cognition recognized by you and Boss, in order they we can comprehend the fact of His infinite greatness as we simultaneously comprehend the fact that we could never fathom the depths or the heights of Him.

Note that the term comprehend, not merely the term apprehend, absolutely applies to these two facts of human cognition! When does the term apprehend come to the fore? We apprehend the infinite depths and heights of Him, but we will never comprehend them.

There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever to abandon the laws of organic thought, human linguistics, insofar as they hold, or the mathematics of the creation and embrace the chaos of incoherency and contradiction. There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that God is not the very unifying substance and the ground of these things. There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness anthropomorphize God; rather, the only rationally coherent conclusion is that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, and it is absurdly arbitrary to rule that possibility out especially when that is the only coherent possibility that cannot be logically ruled out at all.

God is perfect. He is not a liar.

By definition, God is the Creator. Why are you still trying to form a consensus around something that cannot be logically ruled out, let alone logically asserted without positively proving God the Creator? Ridiculous. Once again, by the logic that He would have had to put into our heads if the idea of God is true, by definition, God is perfect. He is not a liar. What is your motive? Is it monetary?

Moreover, it is absurd to necessarily hold that God would at least have the sentience of mental impressions as an operation of omniscience, yet hold that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would not be personhood, which suggests emotional content as well. In any event, none of these possibilities can be logically ruled out.

God is perfect. He is not a liar.

 

[Justin Davis]

why boss rules out a physical nature for the Almighty is anyone's guess however physical nature of a being is not dependent on "self" for it to exist physically and to have sentience - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.

Flora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness that can not be denied and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from "self", and an aspiration for life and imortality.

self - is the problem that both the bible and rawlings misconstrue and are in ignorance for its diabolical consequences. (Answer: of course not!)

bioneurological systems =/= God

.

You're still confused.

Your post demonstrates that you're still imposing your personal, subjective worldview, which is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable to anyone else, on The Seven Things (TST). Hence, you continue to imagine that TST contain or assert things that aren't there. Illusions.

The theory that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired comes to the fore when we contemplate the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

So even the understanding that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired is not literally expressed in TST. It need not be. It logically follows from them and is held to be a fact of human biology due to a mountain of cross-cultural evidence, and this obvious fact of human nature does not preclude the possibility that the ultimate ground for the universal laws of human thought is spiritual. On the contrary, the ramifications of TST hold that they must be bottomed on a spiritual reality, logically, which is driven home by #6 of TST! However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified.

It's really quite amazing to see all the things that necessarily follow, logically, from the foundation of the objectively axiomatic Seven Things of human cognition due to the imperatives of the laws of thought, isn't it?

Just the same, some of these ideas, which do in fact qualify as justified true beliefs/knowledge because they are incontrovertible axioms in organic logic, cannot be scientifically verified. Hence, in constructive logic, due to its rule of direct evidentiary, inhabited proof, they are assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values, while science itself asserts no opinion about them one way or the other.

Hence, the bioneurological systems of terrestrial life known to exist have nothing to do with the nature of the idea of God or with the nature of divine consciousness relative to the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that cannot be logically ruled out (Post #3837).

If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness that can not be denied and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion.

Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof.

There's a revelation to think about. TST contain no assumptions whatsoever, beyond the assumptions that we, you or I, exist and have sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions that other things apart from ourselves exist. Period! End of thought.

Those who do not believe these two things are real can go antirealist themselves, for even the solipsist acknowledges that much, despite Amrchaos' earlier confusion when he forgot that the premise of solipsism is that the interior, sentient impressions of other existents apart from the self, ranging from metaphysical solipsism to methodological solipsism, are held to be things that do not or might not exist in their own right apart from the self. In other words, even the solipsist holds that the cosmological order exists at the very least as a sentient impression.

Fine. As I wrote earlier, the solipsist does not deny the actuality of his own existence as a finite being and, therefore, cannot account for his existence without appealing to something beyond himself. Go ahead, let the solipsist strike #2 from TST. The other five of TST still necessarily (i.e, axiomatically) follow from what is for him the only objective foundation, namely, his existence!

Hence, TST entail the universally apparent, rational and/or empirical necessities that cannot be denied to exist and elicit ideas about other things that either cannot be denied to exist or cannot be logically ruled out to exist, and nothing more.

People! Stop reading things or imagining things into the TST that aren't there!

Illusory cogitations.

These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be necessities and/or possibilities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K), depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. Rational facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are not held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.

Indeed, Boss' assertion that all beings would necessarily be physical is wrong. For any given A: A = A. Any given being is what it is. Any given existent is what it is. Logically, we know that a being can be physical or spiritual (material or immaterial) or a combination thereof.

Boss knows this. He just forgot and interposed his personal idea of God in the place of the objective, logical standard. In other words, if that's his idea of God, okay, but the possibilities that God exists, that God is sentient and is also a self-ware conscious Being of unparalleled greatness cannot be logically ruled out (Post #3837).

No one escapes The Seven Things.

Okay. You lost me.

You wrote this: "If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness that can not be denied and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion."

Then this: "Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K), depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. Rational facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are not held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K."

This seems contradictory to me.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

why boss rules out a physical nature for the Almighty is anyone's guess however physical nature of a being is not dependent on "self" for it to exist physically and to have sentience - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.

Flora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness that can not be denied and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from "self", and an aspiration for life and imortality.

self - is the problem that both the bible and rawlings misconstrue and are in ignorance for its diabolical consequences. (Answer: of course not!)

bioneurological systems =/= God

.

You're still confused.

Your post demonstrates that you're still imposing your personal, subjective worldview, which is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable to anyone else, on The Seven Things (TST). Hence, you continue to imagine that TST contain or assert things that aren't there. Illusions.

The theory that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired comes to the fore when we contemplate the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

So even the understanding that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired is not literally expressed in TST. It need not be. It logically follows from them and is held to be a fact of human biology due to a mountain of cross-cultural evidence, and this obvious fact of human nature does not preclude the possibility that the ultimate ground for the universal laws of human thought is spiritual. On the contrary, the ramifications of TST hold that they must be bottomed on a spiritual reality, logically, which is driven home by #6 of TST! However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified.

It's really quite amazing to see all the things that necessarily follow, logically, from the foundation of the objectively axiomatic Seven Things of human cognition due to the imperatives of the laws of thought, isn't it?

Just the same, some of these ideas, which do in fact qualify as justified true beliefs/knowledge because they are incontrovertible axioms in organic logic, cannot be scientifically verified. Hence, in constructive logic, due to its rule of direct evidentiary, inhabited proof, they are assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values, while science itself asserts no opinion about them one way or the other.

Hence, the bioneurological systems of terrestrial life known to exist have nothing to do with the nature of the idea of God or with the nature of divine consciousness relative to the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that cannot be logically ruled out (Post #3837).

If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness that can not be denied and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion.

Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof.

There's a revelation to think about. TST contain no assumptions whatsoever, beyond the assumptions that we, you or I, exist and have sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions that other things apart from ourselves exist. Period! End of thought.

Those who do not believe these two things are real can go antirealist themselves, for even the solipsist acknowledges that much, despite Amrchaos' earlier confusion when he forgot that the premise of solipsism is that the interior, sentient impressions of other existents apart from the self, ranging from metaphysical solipsism to methodological solipsism, are held to be things that do not or might not exist in their own right apart from the self. In other words, even the solipsist holds that the cosmological order exists at the very least as a sentient impression.

Fine. As I wrote earlier, the solipsist does not deny the actuality of his own existence as a finite being and, therefore, cannot account for his existence without appealing to something beyond himself. Go ahead, let the solipsist strike #2 from TST. The other five of TST still necessarily (i.e, axiomatically) follow from what is for him the only objective foundation, namely, his existence!

Hence, TST entail the universally apparent, rational and/or empirical necessities that cannot be denied to exist and elicit ideas about other things that either cannot be denied to exist or cannot be logically ruled out to exist, and nothing more.

People! Stop reading things or imagining things into the TST that aren't there!

Illusory cogitations.

These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be necessities and/or possibilities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K), depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. Rational facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are not held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.

Indeed, Boss' assertion that all beings would necessarily be physical is wrong. For any given A: A = A. Any given being is what it is. Any given existent is what it is. Logically, we know that a being can be physical or spiritual (material or immaterial) or a combination thereof.

Boss knows this. He just forgot and interposed his personal idea of God in the place of the objective, logical standard. In other words, if that's his idea of God, okay, but the possibilities that God exists, that God is sentient and is also a self-ware conscious Being of unparalleled greatness cannot be logically ruled out (Post #3837).

No one escapes The Seven Things.

Okay. You lost me.

You wrote this: "If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness that can not be denied and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion."

Then this: "Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K), depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. Rational facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are not held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K."

This seems contradictory to me.

Well you don't give me much do go on here, but I suspect I know what the problem is. I actually posted this yesterday, then deleted it because the first version left out the key factor that if not included might cause the reader problems. Apparently, that didn't work. LOL! One of the things I spelled out is the second paragraph you quoted. No doubt you've seen me write that certain ideas cannot be logically ruled in one place and then in other places referred to the very same things as axioms. So if something can't be logically ruled isn't it an axiom and why am I telling BreezeWood that his logical possibility is not an axiom. Is this right?

 

[Justin Davis]

why boss rules out a physical nature for the Almighty is anyone's guess however physical nature of a being is not dependent on "self" for it to exist physically and to have sentience - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.

Flora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness that can not be denied and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from "self", and an aspiration for life and imortality.

self - is the problem that both the bible and rawlings misconstrue and are in ignorance for its diabolical consequences. (Answer: of course not!)

bioneurological systems =/= God

.

You're still confused.

Your post demonstrates that you're still imposing your personal, subjective worldview, which is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable to anyone else, on The Seven Things (TST). Hence, you continue to imagine that TST contain or assert things that aren't there. Illusions.

The theory that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired comes to the fore when we contemplate the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

So even the understanding that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired is not literally expressed in TST. It need not be. It logically follows from them and is held to be a fact of human biology due to a mountain of cross-cultural evidence, and this obvious fact of human nature does not preclude the possibility that the ultimate ground for the universal laws of human thought is spiritual. On the contrary, the ramifications of TST hold that they must be bottomed on a spiritual reality, logically, which is driven home by #6 of TST! However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified.

It's really quite amazing to see all the things that necessarily follow, logically, from the foundation of the objectively axiomatic Seven Things of human cognition due to the imperatives of the laws of thought, isn't it?

Just the same, some of these ideas, which do in fact qualify as justified true beliefs/knowledge because they are incontrovertible axioms in organic logic, cannot be scientifically verified. Hence, in constructive logic, due to its rule of direct evidentiary, inhabited proof, they are assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values, while science itself asserts no opinion about them one way or the other.

Hence, the bioneurological systems of terrestrial life known to exist have nothing to do with the nature of the idea of God or with the nature of divine consciousness relative to the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that cannot be logically ruled out (Post #3837).

If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness that can not be denied and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion.

Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof.

There's a revelation to think about. TST contain no assumptions whatsoever, beyond the assumptions that we, you or I, exist and have sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions that other things apart from ourselves exist. Period! End of thought.

Those who do not believe these two things are real can go antirealist themselves, for even the solipsist acknowledges that much, despite Amrchaos' earlier confusion when he forgot that the premise of solipsism is that the interior, sentient impressions of other existents apart from the self, ranging from metaphysical solipsism to methodological solipsism, are held to be things that do not or might not exist in their own right apart from the self. In other words, even the solipsist holds that the cosmological order exists at the very least as a sentient impression.

Fine. As I wrote earlier, the solipsist does not deny the actuality of his own existence as a finite being and, therefore, cannot account for his existence without appealing to something beyond himself. Go ahead, let the solipsist strike #2 from TST. The other five of TST still necessarily (i.e, axiomatically) follow from what is for him the only objective foundation, namely, his existence!

Hence, TST entail the universally apparent, rational and/or empirical necessities that cannot be denied to exist and elicit ideas about other things that either cannot be denied to exist or cannot be logically ruled out to exist, and nothing more.

People! Stop reading things or imagining things into the TST that aren't there!

Illusory cogitations.

These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be necessities and/or possibilities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K), depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. Rational facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are not held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.

Indeed, Boss' assertion that all beings would necessarily be physical is wrong. For any given A: A = A. Any given being is what it is. Any given existent is what it is. Logically, we know that a being can be physical or spiritual (material or immaterial) or a combination thereof.

Boss knows this. He just forgot and interposed his personal idea of God in the place of the objective, logical standard. In other words, if that's his idea of God, okay, but the possibilities that God exists, that God is sentient and is also a self-ware conscious Being of unparalleled greatness cannot be logically ruled out (Post #3837).

No one escapes The Seven Things.

Okay. You lost me.

You wrote this: "If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness that can not be denied and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion."

Then this: "Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K), depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. Rational facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are not held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K."

This seems contradictory to me.

Well you don't give me much do go on here, but I suspect I know what the problem is. I actually posted this yesterday, then deleted it because the first version left out the key distinction that might cause the reader problems. One of the things I spelled out is the second paragraph you quoted. No doubt you've seen me write that certain ideas cannot be logically ruled in one place and then in other places referred to the very same things as axioms. So if something can't be logically ruled isn't it an axiom and why am I telling BreezeWood that his logically possibility is not an axiom. Is this right?

Yes, that's the first thing but the other thing I don't get is that if something can't logically eliminated that makes it logically necessarily, but you keep saying that some things that can't be eliminated are not logically necessary. I'm officially confused. The post gives me a headache.

 

[G.T.]

Not being able to logically eliminate something makes it a logical necessity?

Umm, no. No it doesn't.

 

[Boss]

Boss' concept of God is not biblical.

I'm not arguing that my concept is or isn't biblical, but do you say it's not because it doesn't conform to your interpretation of biblical God or because the scripture says God is this sentient being you imagine? OR maybe you mean my interpretation is not a Christian interpretation?

I don't think my God contradicts the biblical concept, although it may not conform to man's interpretations of the biblical concept.

Well, as I said to you before, and I'll now say to the person you thoughtlessly agreed with your post: my personal beliefs about this matter are irrelevant to the objective facts of the matter, to the biblical facts and the logical facts of human cognition, and once again you are merely asserting a standard of belief that defies the universally objective standards of justified true belief/knowledge.

I have never once claimed to know things about God beyond what the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition divulge when brought to bear on the problems of existence and origin. Ever! Yet others, including you, including the atheists--for crying out loud!--have claimed to know all kinds of things about God as if from on high that are contrary to the very same imperatives of organic logic. So you veer off into some land of dreams that provides no discernibly objective standard of reason by which we might certify or verify the legitimacy of your claims.

All I need do is point at the fact that there is no legitimate reason to believe that God is lying to us.

Let me see if I have this right. God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?

You weirdly imply that humans anthropomorphize God by some magical means, in effect, though you simultaneously concede that we understand God the way we do because of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic.

Why do I say that you imply something magical?

Because you weirdly and unjustifiably close the door on the undeniable, the indisputable, the incontrovertible fact of the more reasonable possibility that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, beginning with the sentient characteristics of His consciousness, so that we could understand Him and commune with Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. That possibly CANNOT BE LOGICALLY RULED OUT!

It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Indeed, that is the only logically coherent and non-paradoxical position to take, as the denial of that necessarily declares God to be a liar, a God of confusion, a God of chaos . . . in the face of a mathematically well-ordered universe of physical laws apparently aligned with our organic logic.

So God is not the universal Principle of Identity, the very substance and the ground of the logic He endowed to His creature and to the creatures thereof, but is a liar Who devised a creation that misleads us at virtually every turn and about virtually everything that is ultimately true?

In other words, you claim that by these very same laws of thought we know God exists . . . yet everything that follows after The Seven Things suddenly, without warning, totally out of the blue, veers off into bullshit. God is just screwing with our minds.

No. What's happening here is that you veer off into bullshit all by yourself in spite of every indication that the opposite must be true about God and His creation.

Again, what we see you exhibiting is complete defiant rejection of any opinion that is not your own. Even when we both agree on God's existence and the Seven Things, you insist on being contrary and outright insulting to me because I challenge the application of human cognition to God. I'm sorry you feel this way, but it doesn't change my opinion.

Now, you can bow up and make claims inferring I said things that I simply did not say (God's a liar) and you can be as rude and obnoxious about that as you please. I am not shaken. You can try to bolster your contrary opinion to mine with grandiose explanations and pontifications, that's your prerogative. What you CAN'T do is prove me wrong about God.

Let me see if I have this right. God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?

Well of course... Why do you think Atheists believe things about God that are false? Why do radical Muslims think God is pleased with them flying planes of innocent people into buildings? Why doesn't every human being who ever lived, have the same universal understanding of God? The answer is simple, God is Perfect, he endowed us with a set of logical rules so that we might better understand the material physical universe we experience in reality as humans.

Trying to explain God with the "logical set of rules" you prescribe, is akin to trying to explain the Windows OS with a Word document. It simply isn't doable. God created Logic! This does not take away from your brilliant analysis regarding the Seven Things. Note that I am not sitting here denigrating and insulting you or calling your opinion bullshit. It just does not make sense to me that God is a "sentient being" with human emotions and cognition... that's all. I reject that assertion because the God I believe in doesn't need those things. God created those things.

 

[amrchaos]

Not being able to logically eliminate something makes it a logical necessity?

Umm, no. No it doesn't.

If TAG cause arguments amongst theists, then it probably is not a good argument for theists.(inductive statement)

yes, I deleted a prev post. It contain too much junk

 

[the_human_being]

I find it amazing that the very first scripture in the Bible (Genesis 1.1) states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In Hebrew, this verse comes out to 3.14159 or the mathematical pi.

John 1.1 comes out to the Log e. I find these codes throughout the scriptures and it proves to me that the Bible is composed of 66 Books written by 40+ different men over a period of some 1700 years yet it is obviously inspired and authored by a being outside the constraints of time and space.

Actually, I believe it is we who are prisoners of a created "virtual world" while possessing the immortal inner man who is being offered the awesome opportunity to one day break out of this sick, frail, and dying carbon-based body into a super-being of unlimited capabilities and total liberation from the constraints of time and space ourselves.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss' concept of God is not biblical.

I'm not arguing that my concept is or isn't biblical, but do you say it's not because it doesn't conform to your interpretation of biblical God or because the scripture says God is this sentient being you imagine? OR maybe you mean my interpretation is not a Christian interpretation?

I don't think my God contradicts the biblical concept, although it may not conform to man's interpretations of the biblical concept.

Well, as I said to you before, and I'll now say to the person you thoughtlessly agreed with your post: my personal beliefs about this matter are irrelevant to the objective facts of the matter, to the biblical facts and the logical facts of human cognition, and once again you are merely asserting a standard of belief that defies the universally objective standards of justified true belief/knowledge.

I have never once claimed to know things about God beyond what the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition divulge when brought to bear on the problems of existence and origin. Ever! Yet others, including you, including the atheists--for crying out loud!--have claimed to know all kinds of things about God as if from on high that are contrary to the very same imperatives of organic logic. So you veer off into some land of dreams that provides no discernibly objective standard of reason by which we might certify or verify the legitimacy of your claims.

All I need do is point at the fact that there is no legitimate reason to believe that God is lying to us.

Let me see if I have this right. God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?

You weirdly imply that humans anthropomorphize God by some magical means, in effect, though you simultaneously concede that we understand God the way we do because of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic.

Why do I say that you imply something magical?

Because you weirdly and unjustifiably close the door on the undeniable, the indisputable, the incontrovertible fact of the more reasonable possibility that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, beginning with the sentient characteristics of His consciousness, so that we could understand Him and commune with Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. That possibly CANNOT BE LOGICALLY RULED OUT!

It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Indeed, that is the only logically coherent and non-paradoxical position to take, as the denial of that necessarily declares God to be a liar, a God of confusion, a God of chaos . . . in the face of a mathematically well-ordered universe of physical laws apparently aligned with our organic logic.

So God is not the universal Principle of Identity, the very substance and the ground of the logic He endowed to His creature and to the creatures thereof, but is a liar Who devised a creation that misleads us at virtually every turn and about virtually everything that is ultimately true?

In other words, you claim that by these very same laws of thought we know God exists . . . yet everything that follows after The Seven Things suddenly, without warning, totally out of the blue, veers off into bullshit. God is just screwing with our minds.

No. What's happening here is that you veer off into bullshit all by yourself in spite of every indication that the opposite must be true about God and His creation.

Again, what we see you exhibiting is complete defiant rejection of any opinion that is not your own. Even when we both agree on God's existence and the Seven Things, you insist on being contrary and outright insulting to me because I challenge the application of human cognition to God. I'm sorry you feel this way, but it doesn't change my opinion.

Now, you can bow up and make claims inferring I said things that I simply did not say (God's a liar) and you can be as rude and obnoxious about that as you please. I am not shaken. You can try to bolster your contrary opinion to mine with grandiose explanations and pontifications, that's your prerogative. What you CAN'T do is prove me wrong about God.

Let me see if I have this right. God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?

Well of course... Why do you think Atheists believe things about God that are false? Why do radical Muslims think God is pleased with them flying planes of innocent people into buildings? Why doesn't every human being who ever lived, have the same universal understanding of God? The answer is simple, God is Perfect, he endowed us with a set of logical rules so that we might better understand the material physical universe we experience in reality as humans.

Trying to explain God with the "logical set of rules" you prescribe, is akin to trying to explain the Windows OS with a Word document. It simply isn't doable. God created Logic! This does not take away from your brilliant analysis regarding the Seven Things. Note that I am not sitting here denigrating and insulting you or calling your opinion bullshit. It just does not make sense to me that God is a "sentient being" with human emotions and cognition... that's all. I reject that assertion because the God I believe in doesn't need those things. God created those things.

Yet another absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight.

God did not create logic!

The nature of logic is order and coherency. The absence of logic is chaos and incoherency. God is the very substance and the ground of logic. The logic of existence is not contingent, but primary, and the subjective meanderings of a finite consciousness do not have primacy over the realities of the cosmological order, let alone have primacy over the mind of God. And the notion that divine perfection would have one standard of logic for itself and another standard of logic for its creation that misleads, confuses and deceives is ludicrous.

And what is the objective standard I'm standing on? The universal principle of identity that holds in all forms of logic and in science. What are you standing on? Nothing but your private opinion.

As for your absurd, paradoxically contradictory claim that the laws of human logic anthropomorphize God: you can say I reject your rationale out of hand all you want, but the only one here between you and I making an absolute assertion in this regard—presumably on the basis of some form of logic!—in the face of an alternative that is hands down the more rational, the only one that is consistent with the objectively verifiable laws of organic reality (as opposed to your made-up, mysteriously inscrutable standard of logic) is you, not I. It's your position that arbitrarily strikes down the more rational alternative that cannot be logically ruled out in any event, not mine.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I find it amazing that the very first scripture in the Bible (Genesis 1.1) states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In Hebrew, this verse comes out to 3.14159 or the mathematical pi.

John 1.1 comes out to the Log e. I find these codes throughout the scriptures and it proves to me that the Bible is composed of 66 Books written by 40+ different men over a period of some 1700 years yet it is obviously inspired and authored by a being outside the constraints of time and space.

Actually, I believe it is we who are prisoners of a created "virtual world" while possessing the immortal inner man who is being offered the awesome opportunity to one day break out of this sick, frail, and dying carbon-based body into a super-being of unlimited capabilities and total liberation from the constraints of time and space ourselves.

Mathematics is the universal language of God.

 

[the_human_being]

I find it amazing that the very first scripture in the Bible (Genesis 1.1) states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In Hebrew, this verse comes out to 3.14159 or the mathematical pi.

John 1.1 comes out to the Log e. I find these codes throughout the scriptures and it proves to me that the Bible is composed of 66 Books written by 40+ different men over a period of some 1700 years yet it is obviously inspired and authored by a being outside the constraints of time and space.

Actually, I believe it is we who are prisoners of a created "virtual world" while possessing the immortal inner man who is being offered the awesome opportunity to one day break out of this sick, frail, and dying carbon-based body into a super-being of unlimited capabilities and total liberation from the constraints of time and space ourselves.

Mathematics is the universal language of God.

I'm an electrical engineer. These Bible codes nail the whole issue for me. Christ said His thoughts were higher than ours and these codes are so beautifully designed that they should once and for all put any question as to the authenticity of the Bible and of the existence of God to rest for any educated thinking man.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes, that's the first thing but the other thing I don't get is that if something can't logically eliminated that makes it logically necessarily, but you keep saying that some things that can't be eliminated are not logically necessary. I'm officially confused. The post gives me a headache.

No need for headaches. Logical possibility is not logical necessity. Just because an idea cannot be logically ruled out does not mean that it's logically necessary.

Something that is logically necessary is axiomatically true in organic logic and can justifiably be asserted as something that must be ultimately true, even if it's of a transcendental nature, because the denial of it throws the negative proposition into the sea of paradox, contradiction or incoherency.

Now if the logically necessary/axiomatic proposition if of a transcendental nature, it would be something that science cannot currently verify, and in constructive logic, it would be given a valid, albeit, might or might not be true value for analytic purposes.

Some transcendental propositions are just logically possible, so they aren't assigned a value of valid, but might or might not be true, just a value of might or might not be true, because while they are not paradoxically contradictory or incoherent, there's no apparent necessity attached to them either.

Also, model logic formally deals with propositions of possibility and necessity directly.

Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K), depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. Rational facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are not held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.​

So let me give you some examples so you can see what is meant by JTB/K.

The Big Bang Theory is currently held to be JTB/K. So are the fundamentals of the theories of special and general relativity and quantum physics. Now, of course, we know that well-established scientific theories are "tentative facts" subject to revision or falsification, partially or entirely. But we give them a truth value in all forms of logic and grant them JTB/K as a matter of practicality until such time they are overturned because they have stood the test of time, mathematically and empirically, as verified over and over again, even if they don't hold up universally. We're just missing the unifying theory that will fill in the gaps.

Because they are universal, the theory that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are bioneurologically hardwired is currently held to be JTB/K.

The idea that this is ultimately true because they are grounded on a spiritually universal substance/entity is held to be logically possible in all forms of logic, a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. This idea does not conflict with the biological truth and is not inherently contradictory, but there is no objectively apparent reason to hold that it is a logical necessity. Hence, it is not held to be JTB/K and would only be given a might or might not be true value in all forms of logic, not a valid, might or might not be true value.

Now here's a twist for you. The understanding that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out is JTB/K. That's a universal fact of human cognition, assigned a truth value in all forms of logic as well, including constructive logic, because the nature of that proposition is not transcendental at all. It's a fact of human psychology.

However, the idea that God does in fact exist is different, isn't it? Yet it's assigned a truth value in organic/classical logic and in model logic, and a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic. So, is it an idea that is JTB/K?

The answer is yes! For it is an axiom in organic and model logic that cannot be logically negated or scientifically falsified.

And that alone exposes the OP's ignorance of the formal standards of logic, as it falsifies his claim that there exists no valid proof for God's existence.

JTB/K is the controlling factor, which requires that its seal of approval be granted only to propositions, whether they be rational or empirical, that are logically/theoretically necessary, not merely logically/hypothetically possible.


1. Well-established, empirical theories are held to be JTB/K, albeit, tentatively, and are assigned truth values in all forms of logic.

2. Rational cogitations/propositions that are axiomatic (logically necessary) and are not of a transcendental nature are held to be JTB/K and are assigned truth values in all forms of logic.

3. Rational cogitations/propositions that are axiomatic (logically necessary) but are of a transcendental nature are held to be JTB/K and are assigned truth values in organic/classical logic and in model logic, and a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic for analytic purposes.

From this we may also see that there are degrees of surety within the range of JTB/K, but the prize goes to those propositions that are logically/theoretically necessary.

But there remains a wrinkle for most all atheists and for some agnostics.

While all logicians (whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics) know that under the formal conventions/standards of academia that the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin (what I have labeled The Seven Things, including #6, i.e., the TAG) and the underlying foundation (the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin) constitute JTB/K, and are either true or valid in all forms of logic: atheist and agnostic logicians are going to stress the epistemological skepticism of constructive logic with regard to the transcendental aspects.

In the world of philosophical and scientific materialism, particularly from those who hold to the metaphysics of ontological naturalism, you're going to get to the verdict that the transcendental aspects of The Seven Things are logically possible, but not logically necessary, which is bullshit. Also, they're going to blow right past the irreducible mind and just go with the reductio ad absurdum of the of the infinite regression of origin for the sake of the cause-and-effect dynamics of science. Ditto, cranks like the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism or scientists like Hawking. Only the latter go a step further with regard to the transcendental aspects of The Seven Things, holding them to be highly improbable or just plain hooey.

Arrogant, idiot savants.

Their entire edifice for truth is the tentative dichotomy of scientific verification-falsification, the least sure category of JTB/K, which is in turn based on a metaphysical apriority that is not scientifically verifiable, coupled with a belief based on sheer faith that has never been observed to happen or is known to be possible: the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents and the physical laws of nature can produce empirical existents above the level of basic infrastructure.


Now look at what I told BreezeWood:

Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof.​

That's right. The only idea known to man to which spirituality adheres as a logical necessity is, not mankind or any other finite thing, but the idea of God. And because the idea of God cannot be logically ruled out or be negated without positively proving the logical necessity of God's existence in organic logic, it is an axiom that carries the weight of JTB/K.

For crying out loud! Behold just how crazy atheism is, something the greatest scientists of history (Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck . . .) would have never imagined possible, i.e., that scientists of all people would sport so many atheists today. The universe screams God's existence, from the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness to the staggering complexity, yet uniformly well-ordered composition and physical laws of the cosmos. Indeed, the ramifications of the special and general theories of relativity and the imperatives of quantum physics have never screamed it more loudly.

My point?

The materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, unlike the axiomatic positive proof for God's existence in the organic logic of human cognition, which one would reasonably expect God to put into our heads so that we may know that He is, can be logically ruled out, negated and discarded. The atheist's metaphysics cannot be assigned a truth value in any form of logic and does not carry the weight of JTB/K for obvious reasons! Now, methodological naturalism holds these values and this status, but not ontological/metaphysical naturalism. LOL!

Hocus Pocus.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I find it amazing that the very first scripture in the Bible (Genesis 1.1) states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In Hebrew, this verse comes out to 3.14159 or the mathematical pi.

John 1.1 comes out to the Log e. I find these codes throughout the scriptures and it proves to me that the Bible is composed of 66 Books written by 40+ different men over a period of some 1700 years yet it is obviously inspired and authored by a being outside the constraints of time and space.

Actually, I believe it is we who are prisoners of a created "virtual world" while possessing the immortal inner man who is being offered the awesome opportunity to one day break out of this sick, frail, and dying carbon-based body into a super-being of unlimited capabilities and total liberation from the constraints of time and space ourselves.

Mathematics is the universal language of God.

I'm an electrical engineer. These Bible codes nail the whole issue for me. Christ said His thoughts were higher than ours and these codes are so beautifully designed that they should once and for all put any question as to the authenticity of the Bible and of the existence of God to rest for any educated thinking man.

I've studied some of them, but am not an authority. Please, share more!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Not being able to logically eliminate something makes it a logical necessity?

Umm, no. No it doesn't.

If TAG cause arguments amongst theists, then it probably is not a good argument for theists.(inductive statement)

yes, I deleted a prev post. It contain too much junk

The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively:

Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


Note the attempt to overthrow:

Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki


Note the actuality of that attempt:

Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science. Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies would normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!

The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.

In other words, 2 + 2 = 4 presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make 2 + 2 = 4 go away.

 

[amrchaos]

Careful MD

You really don't know what God can or can not create. God may exist outside of the laws of logic and God did create logic.

...yet it is our feeble humans that tries to place restrictions on God...


See how I like to throw you back into those waters despite the proof you laid out? Ha Ha TAG is getting Tagged team from all sides!!

 

[Inevitable]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.

Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.

Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.