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

[M.D. Rawlings]

G.T. Begs the Big Lie

Also See Posts #3944, #3377, #3504 and #3368.

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

[Edit: it just occurred to me that some might be confused by the statement that in constructive logic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are suspended, yet analyzed in constructive logic. Actually, all such axioms are still held to be valid in constructive logic and most of them can be assigned a truth value because most of them are either mathematical in nature and/or are tautologies that pertain to material existents. Hence, these can be empirically supported. Hence, most of them are not suspended as axioms. Axioms that pertain to transcendental potentialities, however, are suspended as axioms, though still held to be valid and can be analyzed, albeit, only on the bases that they hold logically, but may or may not be true ultimately.

Bear in mind that constructive logic is the logic of science . . . mostly, but because it is still in the realm of logic, not science as such, it still proves or negates. So we are still permitted to analyze a broader number of propositions for the purpose of producing credible scientific hypotheses for science in constructive logic, while science is always limited to the dynamics of verification and falsification.

Though I did in fact make this distinction emphatically clear in other posts, I neglected to do so here. Sorry for the confusion.]

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!

Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 207 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 233 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Justin Davis]

I'd say that raps it all, but you still got me thinking about those things on the "periphery".

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'd say that raps it all, but you still got me thinking about those things on the "periphery".

Good. Let me know what you come up with. They're tough questions.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence (See Post #3945)
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

The archetypal objection: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to leave the term God (the Creator) out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIs There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: See Post #3944

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.

 

[BreezeWood]

the only thing in terms of consciousness ever created by creatures is evil, which came into existence as a result their disobedience, starting with the fallen angels and then mankind. They chose as an operation of their free will to rebel against God's word, to deny the truth of God's testimony. Everything that exists, exists in God's mind, including the understanding of what evil is. Evil does not adhere to God's mind in the same sense that it adheres to our minds as a matter of our very nature due to our disobedience. God is all-knowledge, so He simply knows what evil is.)

the only thing in terms of consciousness ever created by creatures is evil ... Evil does not adhere to God's mind in the same sense that it adheres to our minds as a matter of our very nature due to our disobedience.


an obviously patented fallacy, "disobedience" as a justification for Evil - try again rawlings, the origin of Evil.

.

 

[Hollie]

The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: See Post #3944

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.

This is all the same nonsensical special pleading you cut and pasted before.

TAG is a laughable joke.

 

[G.T.]

TAG begs the question, because 'god created knowledge' is not an axiom, its an unproven belief. CHECK.

TAG has not been peer reviewed by 'academia.' CHECK.

TAG is so embarrassingly simple minded, that simple minds as smart as they're convinced that they are - cannot understand their dogma gone wrong in the most egregious of ways. There are even tons of THEOLOGIANS who reject TAG's stupidity. CHECK.

TAG has lost in every online debate its ever been in, but idiotic presuppers cannot understand this BECAUSE they're presuppers. They cannot separate their BELIEF from actual logical axiom (universally accepted). This is why when MD says its been 'universally accepted in classical logic' he is bald faced snake oil lying, because one who doesn't start with god (agnostics/atheists) necessarily don't find god to be axiomatic for fucking OBVIOUS reasons to anyone but a child or a zealot. CHECK.


LAST, & most important point that presuppers have to employ their intellectual dishonesty in order to avoid, is that in order for MPTAG to BE axiomatic, all other possibilities EXCEPT god have to be RULED OUT FIRST, in an ABSOLUTE SENSE. This little kid bit blinds them, thoroughly, as it exposes how really frail as fuck and unsound the 'TAG' is as an argument. CHECK mate.



Instead of going blow for blow, the presupper will dip duck dodge as he(singular, Justin=MD, MD=Justin) has been doing all along and simply copy pasting his poorly written pseudo intellectual word soups. A snake oil selling coward charlatan.

 

[G.T.]

Another thing a presupper has to avoid, is that laws of logic simply describe what is ----- they're not literally brought into existence by a 'transcendent' mind (misnomer).

Let's do one, Kay?

A = A, A does not equal not A.

This concept is only true because WHAT ITS DESCRIBING (non concept) is.

Meaning if A represents an apple, an apple is physically an apple and cannot NOT be an apple. Physically. In reality. The concept which describes this (a=a) is simply JUST THAT, a description of physical reality, NOT something that literally exists itself but just describes what does exist(the apple). It is the apple not physically being able to be anything else and not a descriptive concept that makes this actuality true....... No transcendent mind necessary for the apple to be an apple and not NOT an apple, only a sentient mind needed to describe that which already exists.

The 'laws of logic' do not hold because of a transcendent mind, they hold because they're simply the nature of reality - this is an explanation that also cannot be ruled out thus TAG is, again, not axiomatic.

And we can do this all day.

 

[G.T.]

TAG = transcendental argument for gollum from lord of the rings

 

[G.T.]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

 

[Boss]

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!

Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.

God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!

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!

God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your Seven Things argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.

The Seven Things argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots ™

1. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

2. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

3. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

4. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity.

5. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

6. Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

7. Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

Conclusion: persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That's weird.

I.E. "Whether or not God exists"
most Theists are associated with Genocidal Assjerks
and so all Theists are punished and rejected because of that "guilt by association"
regardless of the actions or views of the actual theist being targeted for the faults
committed collectively by other people.

Instead of seeing the Religious Abusers as the exception and corruption of the practice,
the CONSISTENT true followers who are NOT abusive are "conveniently" marginalized as "exceptions" to justify haranguing and harassing all other Christians and Theists --
in much the same manner as such "religionists" are criticized for doing in the first place!

This is equally a CIRCULAR reaction:
to attack, condemn, and judge Theists for their beliefs, while opponents claim to be AGAINST such religious bias and condemnation of people for their beliefs simply by association!

Sadly ironic, but true and still happening....

M.D. and Hollie: If we can get past the wall building and stone throwing,
maybe we can talk about the content and principles. But not with
sticks and stones flying back and forth. When we're done with the
monkey stage of discovering we can use tools as weapons to wage
tribal warfare, let's try using tools to build something constructive and beneficial instead.
Instead of acting like tools!

I hope to see this discussion evolve into something worthy
of the intelligent minds seeking truth and justice in this place....

 

[emilynghiem]

The Seven Apparent Whether or Knots

1. "Whether God actually exists or not, or whether the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility" -- M.D. Rawlings sounds like a jerk when he talks down to other people,
yet he expects to be respected when he can barely show respect himself.

Even if other people do not deserve respect or forgiveness,
the point of Christianity is to forgive and let God fix the problems,
so if M.D. were any type of Christian he should at least act like one.

2. "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" -- people are human, and if they can't get over how M.D. Rawlings sounds like another jerk pushing an agenda, you're already dead in the water at Step One, and might as well quit talking to a wall....

3. "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" -- if people can't get past #1 or #2 without getting hung up on attacking the speaker, then what good is it to push #3 even further with an audience that isn't listening and already wrote you off.

4. "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity" -- just means that if God is already defined to be something real, then that is true by definition and the proof defines itself. Big deal!

So the issue remains: If people agree, then any disagreements they have are more with the Speaker and how the points are presented or misrepresented; and if people don't agree, they will reject the entire proof by definitions they didn't agree with int the first place, Big Deal. Do we really need to stretch this out into 7 points?

5. "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality" -- if you are still pushing more points after this point, that is taken as proof that you must be just another pushy jerk with an agenda beyond just defining God and sticking to that, in which case you'd be done with step 1 and wouldn't require further explanation or confirmation from others while claiming proof doesn't rely on that!

6. "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one." ==> WTF, you already lost people at Step 1!

7. "Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise." And similarly, you contradict your own teachings of God if you insist on insulting, judging and blaming your audience instead of removing the beam from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in others'. If you recognized your conflicts equally as the ones on the sides of atheists who reject theists based on guilty by association, then maybe you'd at least be equal.

Conclusions:
A. persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
B. Speakers who push these views, while not seeing how they come across as self-serving and inviting rejecting,
are equally baffling and come across as paradoxical if not nonsensical and hypocritical!

Weird? That's just human.
To fault other people yet commit the same wrongs, and wonder why
both sides think the other is being a hypocrite or contradicting themselves. They are both right!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[G.T.]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

 

[emilynghiem]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Nope, ok so I challenge you on both these attacks on people
for pointing out limits to the TAG approach.

1. First you said that I am full of BS, when I can prove what I said is 100% applicable.
2. Now you are assuming GT is a simpleton for pointing out limits which actually takes being clear headed!

M.D. this is why YOU come across as
these things that you project onto other people.

If you can't see that, then you are too full of your own self to see yourself objectively.

Empty your cup first, that you may be filled.
Remove the beam from your own eye, that you may see more clearly to help a neighbor remove a splinter.
Love and forgive others, as you would have forgiven unto you.

It's basic that if you want to share wisdom and truth with others,
you should make sure to practice what you preach!

Can we get that down first, and M.D. I think the other points will follow in turn!

 

[emilynghiem]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

 

[G.T.]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.

I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf. This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Highest Conceivable Standard of Divine Attribution Does Not Beg the Question by Precluding the Arguable Potentialities of the Various Forms of Polytheism or Pantheism


The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is the construct of God as a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself, moreover, an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

This doesn't prevent anyone from inserting polytheism in the place of the generic construct if that's one's poison. I already made that clear and why that logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution for a reason: to do otherwise is what actually begs the question.

If I were to write gods or any given descriptor that denotes some form of pantheism, folks would complain about that, wouldn't they?

Yes. Of course they would.

And If not, why not?

We go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution precisely because it is the only all-inclusive standard!

Knock Knock Anybody home?

If we were to start with a lower standard, the obviously higher/highest possibilities would be arbitrarily eliminated. So it is any given lower standard for divine attribution that is subjective and unjustifiably begs the question, not the objectively highest conceivable standard.

The highest conceivable standard allows for the conceptualization and the insertion of divinity as a collective whole of individuals or as a pantheistic whole.

As I wrote elsewhere:

You're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument: from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., the conclusion of the proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It is necessary to define/assert the construct of God in the terms of its objectively highest standard of attribution; otherwise, you are beg the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But pantheism is not precluded! And this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is (1) conscious of the fact that the objectively highest standard of attribution is a conscious, transcendently non-contingent divinity and is (2) conscious of the fact that he cannot logically rule out that possibility for divinity.​

That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, even classical, polytheistic philosophers: for the sake of simplicity/economy and to make sure they do not preclude any given polytheistic model of divinity, pantheistic model of divinity or monotheistic model of divinity.

In other words, it is understood that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is asserted for the purpose of universal inclusiveness, not to beg the question.

Duh!

A polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option of a higher degree, as is any given form a pantheism, against the purely material, non-theistic potentiality for origin.

Duh!

The only reason some are objecting to the universal, philosophical standard of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or to the universal, scientific standard of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin is because it is manifest that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution carries the greatest weight of probability.

Too bad. Whether they be ultimately right or not, the objectively applied imperatives of human logic do not permit them to usurp the issue on the grounds of their fanatical, intellectual bigotry, do not permit them to arbitrarily preclude what they don't believe to be true about God.