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

[Hollie]

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.

Well, yeah. It's convenient to insist that your gawds are an "uncaused caused". What a shame for you that such pointlessness is not taken seriously in grown-up conversation.

 

[Hollie]

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.

When your argument is shot down in flames, resort to spam.

Typical.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.

For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
Is this God a living being?(subjective)
Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
Is it Omniscience?(subjective)

and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ? Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.

MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.

 

[Justin Davis]

Okay, I've got that part down, but I still have a question that I'm not clear on.

First, now that I got the basics, it looks like you wrote something wrong and that's part of what threw me at first: "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."

I know that very few others are really thinking about this stuff from the things they keep saying and asking you, but I am. How can any part of the origin uncreated consciousness or knowledge be created? All original consciousness and the knowledge that goes with it is God himself. Every other consciousness has to be a smaller copy of his. That has to be right logically from the basic facts of human thought. It's has to be or nothing else we say about God or we can say about anything else can be right. But you said the bold part wrong, it must just be a writing error because everything else lines up except maybe my question. Please tell me I'm right or else I'm confused again.


Now here's my question. You said "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." But then you also said that "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." There still seems to be a contradiction somehow.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.

For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
Is this God a living being?(subjective)
Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
Is it Omniscience?(subjective)

and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ? Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.

MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.

And I'm the guy with the G.E.D. Your questions all add up to is God God? Yes. God is God. Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God. No. Anymore questions?

 

[the_human_being]

One's own body is proof of intelligent design. The DNA contains a DIGITAL code unique to each individual and is proof that we could not possibly have originated from a rock or cesspool of soup. I have a brother. I am not my brother. He is a unique individual as am I.

This digital code is why organ transplants are most easily achieved when the organ to be transplanted is obtained from a blood relative of the recipient and why the body rejects the organs of another.

The information stored inside a single cell would fill the volumes of many sets of encyclopedias. Yes indeed, we are knit together in our mother's womb by an intelligent designer and are a testament to His handiwork.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.

For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
Is this God a living being?(subjective)
Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
Is it Omniscience?(subjective)

and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ? Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.

MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.

And I'm the guy with the G.E.D. Your questions all add up to is God God? Yes. God is God. Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God. No. Anymore questions?

I think it was already established that God is God(see MD's definition of
God as the first Cause-which I allowed!)

However, the proof implies that one is trying to establish that the Creator is sentient in the sense as described in the Bible!!

We have yet to even address whether or not God has a conscience(you are a bit ahead here). We are still trying to figure out if God is sentient by the argument M.D. posed.

I have already stated that claiming the First Cause is sentient(in terms of how the Bible describes it) may not be the case. Also the method MD tries to establish it is questionable at the least.

Understand, it is the one who poses the argument that must demonstrate that God has any characteristics. I am the one that says "Just repeat the definition of God in #3 and out leave any assumptions of characteristics".

 

[the_human_being]

How did Christ enter the locked room? Following His resurrection, a gathering of followers had assembled themselves together within a locked room. Christ appeared inside that locked room without entering through an opened door or window. Impossible the unbeliever exclaims.

Modern science has proven the existence of dimensions in time and space. They have concluded that this world we are confined to is a three dimensional world. Someone outside this three dimensional world of ours (in a forth dimension) could move freely into and out of a room without a door or window at will. This is called hyperspace travel. This is the science upon which the popular "Beam me up, Scotty", of Star Trek fame was based.

Here's another little interest fact:

Two astronaut brothers and twins gathered at Cape Kennedy for a voyage one brother would undertake to our nearest star, some 4 1/2 light years away. The brother blasted off and was gone for 18 months. His rocket was traveling at 1/2 the speed of light. It took him 9 years to go and 9 years to return.

When the twin returned to Cape Kennedy his brother met him there. The twin who had just returned from his 18 month travels was now two years and five months younger than his twin brother who had remained on earth confined by time and space.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.

For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
Is this God a living being?(subjective)
Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
Is it Omniscience?(subjective)

and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ? Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.

MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.

And I'm the guy with the G.E.D. Your questions all add up to is God God? Yes. God is God. Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God. No. Anymore questions?

"There are Pink Unicorns dancing in a cherry tree."

Tell me, can you rule the above concept from out of your head?
You can't using your terminology for logic.

Do you finally understand the statement MD gave? He is not talking about God, He is talking about a concept of God!!

It is important to understand what the Solipsist is doing, and why premise 1 need to change to "I exist"!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, I've got that part down, but I still have a question that I'm not clear on.

First, now that I got the basics, it looks like you wrote something wrong and that's part of what threw me at first: "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."

I know that very few others are really thinking about this stuff from the things they keep saying and asking you, but I am. How can any part of the origin uncreated consciousness or knowledge be created? All original consciousness and the knowledge that goes with it is God himself. Every other consciousness has to be a smaller copy of his. That has to be right logically from the basic facts of human thought. It's has to be or nothing else we say about God or we can say about anything else can be right. But you said the bold part wrong, it must just be a writing error because everything else lines up except maybe my question. Please tell me I'm right or else I'm confused again.


Now here's my question. You said "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." But then you also said that "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." There still seems to be a contradiction somehow.

Yes. It's an error in expression. Good eye. I shouldn't have written "necessities and/or possibilities" in the same context of justified true belief/knowledge."

It should read necessities only. Better yet, it should read: ". . . logical necessities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."

As for your other question, let me come back to that in another post. Rest assured, there's no contradiction, but there is a wrinkle on the parameters of that issue regarding something I haven’t thought enough about. I think it can be objectively asserted with absolute certainty on the basis of organic logic. Others have, but I'm not so sure about that. But it looks like it can be after all.

Excellent! You've got it. The reason you spotted my error in expression is because you do understand. The foundation for this understanding is the apprehension of the axiom within the axiom of the transcendental proof (#6 of The Seven Things) that God exists in organic logic: divine consciousness is the eternally self-subsistent ground for all other existents! It is readily self-evident, logically, that God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up.

It is absurd to say that God created Himself or any aspect of Himself. Neither He nor any aspect of Him is a creature!

Did God create omniscience? No, of course not. He is omniscient.

Did God create knowledge? No, of course not. He has all knowledge, including logic.

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we can in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms: everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

Note: the latter part of that sentence shifts over to God's perspective, not of time, for He is timeless, but over to His perspective of existence, and we apprehend the essence of His omniscience in this regard with no sweat.

Folks! Stop telling yourselves that we can't adequately apprehend what we need to know about God. Of course we can, easily! God made it so. Comprehending the totality of God is a different matter.

Did God create the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive expression of the laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle), the metaphysical foundation of knowledge? No, of course not. He is the universal Principle of Identity.

A: A = A. God is God. God does not become God. These things are essentially Who and What He is.

Does God have all knowledge, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, or not? Logically, of course He does.

If not, why not?

Crickets chirping

If we're talking about an entity that does not have all knowledge, once again, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, we're not talking about God, but a creature.

So what do I mean that God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up?

Did God not create existents with finite minds? Yes. In so doing did God create something that did not exist "before" His eternal existence? Yes and No. Yes. He created beings who like Himself have consciousness, but is any aspect of the consciousness that finite beings have something that never existed "before"?

No.

The minds of finite creatures are finite expressions/reproductions of what has always existed in God's mind.

Everything that exists, exists in God's mind! "God never closes His 'eyes'; God never 'looks' away."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.

For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
Is this God a living being?(subjective)
Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
Is it Omniscience?(subjective)

and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ? Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.

MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.

And I'm the guy with the G.E.D. Your questions all add up to is God God? Yes. God is God. Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God. No. Anymore questions?

"There are Pink Unicorns dancing in a cherry tree."

Tell me, can you rule the above concept from out of your head?
You can't using your terminology for logic.

Do you finally understand the statement MD gave? He is not talking about God, He is talking about a concept of God!!

It is important to understand what the Solipsist is doing, and why premise 1 need to change to "I exist"!!

Once again, #1 and #2 are premised on the qualification that we accept these things to be actual. The solipsist can change the we of #1 to I and change the cosmological order exists! of #2 to the impression of it that exists in my mind to suit himself. Either way, the rest follow. For most, solipsism is weird, so I go with what most people get and merely invite the solipsist to revise #1 and #2 to his liking and come along, for after that it is purely a matter the divine concept that exists universally in our minds due to the organic (or rational) laws of human thought.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.

For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
Is this God a living being?(subjective)
Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
Is it Omniscience?(subjective)

and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ? Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.

MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.

And I'm the guy with the G.E.D. Your questions all add up to is God God? Yes. God is God. Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God. No. Anymore questions?

I think it was already established that God is God(see MD's definition of
God as the first Cause-which I allowed!)

However, the proof implies that one is trying to establish that the Creator is sentient in the sense as described in the Bible!!

We have yet to even address whether or not God has a conscience(you are a bit ahead here). We are still trying to figure out if God is sentient by the argument M.D. posed.

I have already stated that claiming the First Cause is sentient(in terms of how the Bible describes it) may not be the case. Also the method MD tries to establish it is questionable at the least.

Understand, it is the one who poses the argument that must demonstrate that God has any characteristics. I am the one that says "Just repeat the definition of God in #3 and out leave any assumptions of characteristics".

God is necessarily sentient.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!

Are you listening to yourself?

God did not create everything! That's absurd. I never wrote any such crazy thing. God did not create Himself or any aspect of Himself. God created everything else that exists apart from Himself! Logic was not created. God is the universal Principle of Identity, the comprehensive expression of the universal laws of thought/logic. Logic has always existed because God has always existed. He is the very substance and the ground of logic. It's His logic that we have. It's His logic that was endowed to us.

That is a logical necessity, self-evident from #3, #4 and affirmed by #6. You just haven't thought it through.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.

For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
Is this God a living being?(subjective)
Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
Is it Omniscience?(subjective)

and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ? Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.

MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.

And I'm the guy with the G.E.D. Your questions all add up to is God God? Yes. God is God. Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God. No. Anymore questions?

"There are Pink Unicorns dancing in a cherry tree."

Tell me, can you rule the above concept from out of your head?
You can't using your terminology for logic.

Do you finally understand the statement MD gave? He is not talking about God, He is talking about a concept of God!!

It is important to understand what the Solipsist is doing, and why premise 1 need to change to "I exist"!!

I understand that he is talking about a concept. The concept of God is Creator.

 

[Justin Davis]

Okay, I've got that part down, but I still have a question that I'm not clear on.

First, now that I got the basics, it looks like you wrote something wrong and that's part of what threw me at first: "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."

I know that very few others are really thinking about this stuff from the things they keep saying and asking you, but I am. How can any part of the origin uncreated consciousness or knowledge be created? All original consciousness and the knowledge that goes with it is God himself. Every other consciousness has to be a smaller copy of his. That has to be right logically from the basic facts of human thought. It's has to be or nothing else we say about God or we can say about anything else can be right. But you said the bold part wrong, it must just be a writing error because everything else lines up except maybe my question. Please tell me I'm right or else I'm confused again.


Now here's my question. You said "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." But then you also said that "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." There still seems to be a contradiction somehow.

Yes. It's an error in expression. Good eye. I shouldn't have written "necessities and/or possibilities" in the same context of justified true belief/knowledge."

It should read necessities only. Better yet, it should read: ". . . logical necessities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."

As for your other question, let me come back to that in another post. Rest assured, there's no contradiction, but there is a wrinkle on the parameters of that issue regarding something I haven’t thought enough about. I think it can be objectively asserted with absolute certainty on the basis of organic logic. Others have, but I'm not so sure about that. But it looks like it can be after all.

Excellent! You've got it. The reason you spotted my error in expression is because you do understand. The foundation for this understanding is the apprehension of the axiom within the axiom of the transcendental proof (#6 of The Seven Things) that God exists in organic logic: divine consciousness is the eternally self-subsistent ground for all other existents! It is readily self-evident, logically, that God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up.

It is absurd to say that God created Himself or any aspect of Himself. Neither He nor any aspect of Him is a creature!

Did God create omniscience? No, of course not. He is omniscient.

Did God create knowledge? No, of course not. He has all knowledge, including logic.

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we can in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms: everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

Note: the latter part of that sentence shifts over to God's perspective, not of time, for He is timeless, but over to His perspective of existence, and we apprehend the essence of His omniscience in this regard with no sweat.

Folks! Stop telling yourselves that we can't adequately apprehend what we need to know about God. Of course we can, easily! God made it so. Comprehending the totality of God is a different matter.

Did God create the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive expression of the laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle), the metaphysical foundation of knowledge? No, of course not. He is the universal Principle of Identity.

A: A = A. God is God. God does not become God. These things are essentially Who and What He is.

Does God have all knowledge, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, or not? Logically, of course He does.

If not, why not?

Crickets chirping

If we're talking about an entity that does not have all knowledge, once again, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, we're not talking about God, but a creature.

So what do I mean that God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up?

Did God not create existents with finite minds? Yes. In so doing did God create something that did not exist "before" His eternal existence? Yes and No. Yes. He created beings who like Himself have consciousness, but is any aspect of the consciousness that finite beings have something that never existed "before"?

No.

The minds of finite creatures are finite expressions/reproductions of what has always existed in God's mind.

Everything that exists, exists in God's mind! "God never closes His 'eyes'; God never 'looks' away."

Wow! Okay, got that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, I've got that part down, but I still have a question that I'm not clear on.

First, now that I got the basics, it looks like you wrote something wrong and that's part of what threw me at first: "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."

I know that very few others are really thinking about this stuff from the things they keep saying and asking you, but I am. How can any part of the origin uncreated consciousness or knowledge be created? All original consciousness and the knowledge that goes with it is God himself. Every other consciousness has to be a smaller copy of his. That has to be right logically from the basic facts of human thought. It's has to be or nothing else we say about God or we can say about anything else can be right. But you said the bold part wrong, it must just be a writing error because everything else lines up except maybe my question. Please tell me I'm right or else I'm confused again.


Now here's my question. You said "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." But then you also said that "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." There still seems to be a contradiction somehow.

Yes. It's an error in expression. Good eye. I shouldn't have written "necessities and/or possibilities" in the same context of justified true belief/knowledge."

It should read necessities only. Better yet, it should read: ". . . logical necessities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."

As for your other question, let me come back to that in another post. Rest assured, there's no contradiction, but there is a wrinkle on the parameters of that issue regarding something I haven’t thought enough about. I think it can be objectively asserted with absolute certainty on the basis of organic logic. Others have, but I'm not so sure about that. But it looks like it can be after all.

Excellent! You've got it. The reason you spotted my error in expression is because you do understand. The foundation for this understanding is the apprehension of the axiom within the axiom of the transcendental proof (#6 of The Seven Things) that God exists in organic logic: divine consciousness is the eternally self-subsistent ground for all other existents! It is readily self-evident, logically, that God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up.

It is absurd to say that God created Himself or any aspect of Himself. Neither He nor any aspect of Him is a creature!

Did God create omniscience? No, of course not. He is omniscient.

Did God create knowledge? No, of course not. He has all knowledge, including logic.

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we can in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms: everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

Note: the latter part of that sentence shifts over to God's perspective, not of time, for He is timeless, but over to His perspective of existence, and we apprehend the essence of His omniscience in this regard with no sweat.

Folks! Stop telling yourselves that we can't adequately apprehend what we need to know about God. Of course we can, easily! God made it so. Comprehending the totality of God is a different matter.

Did God create the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive expression of the laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle), the metaphysical foundation of knowledge? No, of course not. He is the universal Principle of Identity.

A: A = A. God is God. God does not become God. These things are essentially Who and What He is.

Does God have all knowledge, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, or not? Logically, of course He does.

If not, why not?

Crickets chirping

If we're talking about an entity that does not have all knowledge, once again, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, we're not talking about God, but a creature.

So what do I mean that God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up?

Did God not create existents with finite minds? Yes. In so doing did God create something that did not exist "before" His eternal existence? Yes and No. Yes. He created beings who like Himself have consciousness, but is any aspect of the consciousness that finite beings have something that never existed "before"?

No.

The minds of finite creatures are finite expressions/reproductions of what has always existed in God's mind.

Everything that exists, exists in God's mind! "God never closes His 'eyes'; God never 'looks' away."

Wow! Okay, got that.

Good. Now I need to repost a few things with your correction and invite Boss and Amrchaos to reread them carefully before I go on. Their missing the essence of something that is self-evident and cannot be denied. Then I address you other question, which is a good one, really.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss and Amrchaos:

Reread the posts that follow. They are important. They're telling you things that are logically necessary.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sentience I

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

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

The notion arises when persons think about #3 or #4.

What does it mean to say that God would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness?

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

Answer: Unparalleled.

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

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

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

Sentience doesn't impinge on the issue of perfection at all. Perfection and the possession of emotions are not mutually exclusive!

Whaaaaaa?

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

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

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

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

Oops.

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

No one escapes The Seven Things.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sentience II

Sentience doesn't have to be argued in The Seven Things. Philosophically, sentience is the foundation of self-awareness for humans. The entirety of consciousness necessarily follows. As for how sentience would apply to the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof, you keep trying to beg the question, from top to bottom, and I'm telling you that it can't be logically done without presupposing God's existence—including the entirety of His consciousness from top to bottom! From the foundation of self-awareness to the infinite degree of greatness regarding the idea of God: none of these things can be logically ruled out! That and only that idea of God is objectively unassailable. Any notion less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution begs the question.

But by all means keep presupposing God's existence with those Freudian solips of yours when you, as one with absolute authority, as if from on . . . "higher," share your intimate knowledge about God's attributes and powers of cognition that cannot be logically ruled out by the rest of us mere mortals. Welcome to The Seven Things Club. Confession is good for the soul.

See that most revealing Post #3918. Some people just aren't thinking things through as they unwittingly reveal that they are aware of the fact that the objective facts of human cognition universally hold regarding the problems of existence and origin.

You have the foundation of self-awareness in your mind: sentience!

Even the solipsist has a subjective, sentient impression of a universe that presents itself as something existing beyond the confines of his mind. Whether he believes it has any concrete reality as such is irrelevant to the fact of his experience of that sentient impression.

With these sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions indisputably comes self-awareness and the awareness that you are a finite mind that cannot account for your own origin sans an eternally existing, inanimate materiality or a self-aware immateriality akin to your own, albeit, one that would have to be infinity greater than your consciousness, and the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin tell you that this idea of a divine Creator cannot be logically ruled out.

No one escapes The Seven Things.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sentience III


BreezeWood, 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 and psychology 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 #3918).

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 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 #3918).

No one escapes The Seven Things.