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

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!!

You're out of you're mind. The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin cannot be overthrown. It is not merely the foundational proof for the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. Everything we do in logic and science is premised on that proof. The concept of objectivity itself is premised on that proof.

Your argument is that we can't know for sure that the laws of logic universally hold, so none of this might be real or true. Well, heck, my dog might just be cat too. That's your argument and that's all it is. So there are no absolutes? The logic of human consciousness is an illusion? So nothing you say, according to your logic, matters? Well, stop talking. What are arguing for? LOL! So go sing it the trees. See if they turn into stars. Tell the rocks that, the birds. Talk to the hand. The fact remains that the logical proofs hold. There is no argument that can overthrow them.


I'm not putting any restrictions on God. It's amazing that those who keep arguing from the subjective perspective fail to recognize that in every instance it is they who claim to have absolute knowledge about God that invariably contradicts the laws of thought (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) and reduces the idea of God to something less than the only objectively universal standard of unparalleled greatness. It is they who limit God, jam Him into a box.

By definition, God is the Creator of all other things that exist. God is not by definition a creature. What is wrong with you people? Logically, if He's not the Creator, then He's a creature. Whaaaaa? The law of the excluded middle or third, anyone? There is no real third option. Semantics do not make the rose that is a rose become a dog. LOL!

The nonsense against the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has been refuted every which way and Sunday on this thread.

Bald declarations to the contrary are not arguments, but slogans. LOL! Now thank me.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

There isn't one, he says. LOL! Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh? Psst. The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified. The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you. It's no contest at all. Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power. But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true. Beam me up, Scotty! LOL!

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

 

[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.

There isn't one, he says. LOL! Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh? Psst. The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified. The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you. It's no contest at all. Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power. But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true. Beam me up, Scotty! LOL!

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.

 

[Boss]

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

God did not create logic!

That's humorous Rawlings. You accuse me of making an absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight, then follow it with an absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight!

God did not create logic? Are you listening to yourself here? GOD CREATED EVERYTHING!

 

[G.T.]

Tag







Hahahahahahahaa

 

[Hollie]

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.

There isn't one, he says. LOL! Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh? Psst. The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified. The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you. It's no contest at all. Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power. But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true. Beam me up, Scotty! LOL!

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

Actually, comedy and tragedy would describe your pointless rattling on with slogans and cliches'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Yet another example of the arrogance and foolishness common to most theists.

 

[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.

There isn't one, he says. LOL! Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh? Psst. The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified. The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you. It's no contest at all. Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power. But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true. Beam me up, Scotty! LOL!

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

Actually, comedy and tragedy would describe your pointless rattling on with slogans and cliches'

If you could prove God existed, there wouldbe no more religion. Only facts.

That is my thought on it.

 

[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!!

You're out of you're mind. The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin cannot be overthrown. It is not merely the foundational proof for the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. Everything we do in logic and science is premised on that proof. The concept of objectivity itself is premised on that proof.

Your argument is that we can't know for sure that the laws of logic universally hold, so none of this might be real or true. Well, heck, my dog might just be cat too. That's your argument and that's all it is. So there are no absolutes? The logic of human consciousness is an illusion? So nothing you say, according to your logic, matters? Well, stop talking. What are arguing for? LOL! So go sing it the trees. See if they turn into stars. Tell the rocks that, the birds. Talk to the hand. The fact remains that the logical proofs hold. There is no argument that can overthrow them.


I'm not putting any restrictions on God. It's amazing that those who keep arguing from the subjective perspective fail to recognize that in every instance it is they who claim to have absolute knowledge about God that invariably contradicts the laws of thought (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) and reduces the idea of God to something less than the only objectively universal standard of unparalleled greatness. It is they who limit God, jam Him into a box.

By definition, God is the Creator of all other things that exist. God is not by definition a creature. What is wrong with you people? Logically, if He's not the Creator, then He's a creature. Whaaaaa? The law of the excluded middle or third, anyone? There is no real third option. Semantics do not make the rose that is a rose become a dog. LOL!

The nonsense against the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has been refuted every which way and Sunday on this thread.

Bald declarations to the contrary are not arguments, but slogans. LOL! Now thank me.

a)Is God restricted under the laws of logic?

Or
b)Is God the laws of logic?

Or
c)Did God create the laws of logic?

To me, it seems like the God you are trying to prove falls under a). Is that what you are suggesting M.D. I hope so,at least I know that we are both on the same page about your assumptions of God. However I do need a firm confirmation from you.

Boss and emily has thrown a humongous hurdle into the discussion!! One in which I don't find it necessary to crawl over. But it seems like you do.

 

[Hollie]

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!!

You're out of you're mind. The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin cannot be overthrown. It is not merely the foundational proof for the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. Everything we do in logic and science is premised on that proof. The concept of objectivity itself is premised on that proof.

Your argument is that we can't know for sure that the laws of logic universally hold, so none of this might be real or true. Well, heck, my dog might just be cat too. That's your argument and that's all it is. So there are no absolutes? The logic of human consciousness is an illusion? So nothing you say, according to your logic, matters? Well, stop talking. What are arguing for? LOL! So go sing it the trees. See if they turn into stars. Tell the rocks that, the birds. Talk to the hand. The fact remains that the logical proofs hold. There is no argument that can overthrow them.


I'm not putting any restrictions on God. It's amazing that those who keep arguing from the subjective perspective fail to recognize that in every instance it is they who claim to have absolute knowledge about God that invariably contradicts the laws of thought (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) and reduces the idea of God to something less than the only objectively universal standard of unparalleled greatness. It is they who limit God, jam Him into a box.

By definition, God is the Creator of all other things that exist. God is not by definition a creature. What is wrong with you people? Logically, if He's not the Creator, then He's a creature. Whaaaaa? The law of the excluded middle or third, anyone? There is no real third option. Semantics do not make the rose that is a rose become a dog. LOL!

The nonsense against the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has been refuted every which way and Sunday on this thread.

Bald declarations to the contrary are not arguments, but slogans. LOL! Now thank me.

"By definition", it is merely your opinion that your conception of partisan gods are the creators of all things that exist.

Not surprisingly, you presume to speak with absolute authority on matters that require acceptance of magic and supernaturalism and are utterly absent verification.

In that sense, your claims to gawds are no different than the rantings of someone totally out of touch with reality, LOL!

 

[Boss]

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....

Hold on a minute.... MY logic is, God created everything, including logic itself. If God did NOT create logic, and logic does exist, then God is not omnipotent.

The position that ANYTHING exists that God did not create, is what is without logic.

 

[Justin Davis]

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!!

God's a toaster.

 

[Hollie]

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....

Hold on a minute.... MY logic is, God created everything, including logic itself. If God did NOT create logic, and logic does exist, then God is not omnipotent.

The position that ANYTHING exists that God did not create, is what is without logic.

Right. It's only "logical" that your particular invention of magical, supernatural entities are the creators of everything.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

There isn't one, he says. LOL! Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh? Psst. The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified. The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you. It's no contest at all. Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power. But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true. Beam me up, Scotty! LOL!

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.

The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence. The answer is that there are. The OP is wrong to say there are none or that the traditional arguments fail.

 

[amrchaos]

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....

Hold on a minute.... MY logic is, God created everything, including logic itself. If God did NOT create logic, and logic does exist, then God is not omnipotent.

The position that ANYTHING exists that God did not create, is what is without logic.

In other words--your notion of God falls up under 3). Emily's quote about God falls here as well

M.D. is not trying to establish that God, his God seems to fall up under 1. I hope it falls up under 1 because 3 makes any argument about those god highly subjective and inconclusive.

Hell, I don't even know what I am arguing about!! I have to take an agnostic stand for god 3):I don't know

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Okay. I got it now.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

There isn't one, he says. LOL! Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh? Psst. The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified. The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you. It's no contest at all. Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power. But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true. Beam me up, Scotty! LOL!

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.

The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence. The answer is that there are. The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.

Are we talking about any God?
(Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)

Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?

Hint: We atheist are talking about God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!

 

[Hollie]

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.

There isn't one, he says. LOL! Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh? Psst. The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified. The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you. It's no contest at all. Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power. But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true. Beam me up, Scotty! LOL!

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.

The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence. The answer is that there are. The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.

Umm. No, actually. The fact is, there are no valid arguments for any of the gawds.

What's comical is to see Boss and Rawling arguing over their competing and contradictory conceptions of gawds like a pair of schoolgirls arguing over whose breasts are bigger.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

There isn't one, he says. LOL! Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh? Psst. The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified. The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you. It's no contest at all. Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power. But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true. Beam me up, Scotty! LOL!

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.

The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence. The answer is that there are. The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.

Are we talking about any God?
(Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)

Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?

Hint: We atheist are talking about God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!

The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression. All the arguments are, all of human understanding is. God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator. It's silly to pretend you don't understand that. Anything less than that is not God.

 

[Justin Davis]

Umm. No, actually. The fact is, there are no valid arguments for any of the gawds.

What's comical is to see Boss and Rawling arguing over their competing and contradictory conceptions of gawds like a pair of schoolgirls arguing over whose breasts are bigger.