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

[G.T.]

My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.

I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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.

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.

But that hinges on your notions of what God is. I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).

If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with C. LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Ha Ha, you are a riot!!

I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!

You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us? And How?

No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.

So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.

Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.

From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
* some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
* some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
* and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.

So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.

it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.

MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.

 

[G.T.]

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.

He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.

But that hinges on your notions of what God is. I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).

If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with C. LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Ha Ha, you are a riot!!

I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!

You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us? And How?

No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.

So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.

Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.

From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
* some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
* some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
* and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.

So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.

it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.

MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.

Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.

God is everything
Everything exists
Therefore, god is real!

Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

[emilynghiem]

My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.

I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.

OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.

So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.

What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
Christian construct of God being rejected.

So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.

What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.

 

[amrchaos]

I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.

Arm, tag is this argument:

1. God created all knowledge.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. Therefore, god exists.

A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.

Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove.

They call tag PROOF that god exists.

If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly

Actually, this is my first time seeing TAG

It is really slick if you go through it fast. You end up accepting a whole bunch of questionable notions. #3 made me re-examine 1 and ask the question "Is it an inductive argument?"

I'm talking about "7 things"

 

[G.T.]

My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.

I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.

OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.

So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.

What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
Christian construct of God being rejected.

So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.

What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.

What do I call reality? Reality.
What do I call the universe? The universe.
What do I call existence? Existence.

God doesn't even apply, everything is already defined in and of itself. Calling it 'god' is a futile attempt to STRETCH or move the goalposts intellectually in order to justify belief in god.

It's not rational to do that, its partaking in a rather frivolous activity.

 

[emilynghiem]

He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.

But that hinges on your notions of what God is. I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).

If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days. You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted. It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?

OK

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with C. LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Ha Ha, you are a riot!!

I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!

You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us? And How?

No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.

So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.

Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.

From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
* some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
* some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
* and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.

So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.

it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.

MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.

Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.

God is everything
Everything exists
Therefore, god is real!

Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.

For example, I can throw out the idea that
human nature is body/mind/spirit
or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality

and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.

Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.

And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
motivating or inspiring it for us.

And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.

So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?

 

[G.T.]

I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.

Arm, tag is this argument:

1. God created all knowledge.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. Therefore, god exists.

A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.

Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove.

They call tag PROOF that god exists.

If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly

Actually, this is my first time seeing TAG

It is really slick if you go through it fast. You end up accepting a whole bunch of questionable notions. #3 made me re-examine 1 and ask the question "Is it an inductive argument?"

Dude......TAG is what this WHOLE thread has been about, and MDs seven things are his attempt to magically make premise #1(above) an axiom.

That's the reason the seven even came up, they branched off of him asserting the TAG as an absolute PROOF of the existence of God

Its why any rational person couldn't and shouldn't ever take him seriously.

TAG is short for the "transcendental argument for god."

Its the three premises I listed above. Its been debunked as a poorly formed argument for ages, but a presuppositional apologetic does not accept that its bad form because they wrong assert that premise #1 is an axiom.

The definition of axiom is a "universally accepted, self evident truth."

If god was universally accepted, this thread doesn't even exist.

The hubris of TAG proponents is kind of disgusting.

 

[emilynghiem]

My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.

I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.

OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.

So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.

What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
Christian construct of God being rejected.

So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.

What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.

What do I call reality? Reality.
What do I call the universe? The universe.
What do I call existence? Existence.

God doesn't even apply, everything is already defined in and of itself. Calling it 'god' is a futile attempt to STRETCH or move the goalposts intellectually in order to justify belief in god.

It's not rational to do that, its partaking in a rather frivolous activity.

Good, we can just stick with Universe and what you call the greater reality or collective existence in Life out there.
That's good enough.

What the real issue is: how do we define how to work individually, in relationships and collectively?

Now if you can spell out basically what you believe about truth, peace and justice,
that should align with what is taught in religions minus the symbolism.

So if we can do that, we can translate what God and Jesus mean into secular terms
and talk about the exact same concepts principles and process. We can align
common sense terms with the "collective symbolism" for "all humanity going through a universal process"
of realizing spiritual peace and justice on a global scale.

 

[G.T.]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.

But that hinges on your notions of what God is. I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).

If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it

Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might not exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound? LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy. That was a hoot! Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school? Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with C. LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity. That was a hoot, too!

Ha Ha, you are a riot!!

I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!

You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us? And How?

No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.

So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.

Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.

From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
* some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
* some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
* and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.

So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.

it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.

MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.

Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.

God is everything
Everything exists
Therefore, god is real!

Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.

For example, I can throw out the idea that
human nature is body/mind/spirit
or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality

and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.

Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.

And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
motivating or inspiring it for us.

And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.

So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?

I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:

I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.

Arm, tag is this argument:

1. God created all knowledge.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. Therefore, god exists.

A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.

Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove.

They call tag PROOF that god exists.

If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly

Actually, this is my first time seeing TAG

It is really slick if you go through it fast. You end up accepting a whole bunch of questionable notions. #3 made me re-examine 1 and ask the question "Is it an inductive argument?"

Dude......TAG is what this WHOLE thread has been about, and MDs seven things are his attempt to magically make premise #1(above) an axiom.

That's the reason the seven even came up, they branched off of him asserting the TAG as an absolute PROOF of the existence of God

Its why any rational person couldn't and shouldn't ever take him seriously.

TAG is short for the "transcendental argument for god."

Its the three premises I listed above. Its been debunked as a poorly formed argument for ages, but a presuppositional apologetic does not accept that its bad form because they wrong assert that premise #1 is an axiom.

The definition of axiom is a "universally accepted, self evident truth."
If god was universally accepted, this thread doesn't even exist.
The hubris of TAG proponents is kind of disgusting.

OK GT what about starting a proof this way, with a self-asserting statement and then working backward
to resolve any objections or conflicts that come up in response to it:

What if the opening statement is
"the meaning of Christ Jesus is Restorative Justice."
and the Bible represents the collective process of all humanity
coming to peace by receiving universal justice that brings healing to all relations.

And any statement to the contrary is due to other conflicts that if resolved
will also lead to reconciliation on the above stated premise.

sublemma: the key to resolution is forgiveness; where people's ability to forgive
conflicts and differences correlates with agreement on restorative justice,
and people's inability to forgive correlated with failure to reach fuller agreement.

To explain the story of humanity summarized in the Bible, it helps to distinguish the difference between the Old and New Testaments, which determines if the rest will make sense at all, or even needs to be read.

In short, the Old Testament records the tragic history of living by the "letter of the law" and retributive justice, causing death and genocidal destruction by greed, while the New Testament paints a positive future for humanity, with renewed love of life and relationships by restorative justice, living by the "spirit of the law" for lasting peace.

The key difference between these paths is divine forgiveness, which breaks the cycle of retribution inherited from previous generations. Without forgiveness, suffering repeats, projected forward. However, by receiving forgiveness and correction, where Jesus represents the spiritual process of embracing equal justice, humanity finds liberation from past strife by establishing universal truth, justice, and peace on earth. Thus, human nature is destined to reach maturity in mind, body, and spirit, collectively symbolized by the Holy Trinity.

Salvation in Jesus represents restorative justice with mercy, bringing healing grace to end conflicts. Reconciling local laws among individuals with universal laws on a global scale fulfills both in perfect harmony or marriage between people, as the bride or church, united with the authority of law or state.

The story of sacrifice and redemption represents the spiritual process each individual experiences to grow in life -- through trials, failures, and recovery -- which drives humanity to reach spiritual understanding, wholeness, and peace.

 

[G.T.]

My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.

I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.

OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.

So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.

What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
Christian construct of God being rejected.

So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.

What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.

What do I call reality? Reality.
What do I call the universe? The universe.
What do I call existence? Existence.

God doesn't even apply, everything is already defined in and of itself. Calling it 'god' is a futile attempt to STRETCH or move the goalposts intellectually in order to justify belief in god.

It's not rational to do that, its partaking in a rather frivolous activity.

Good, we can just stick with Universe and what you call the greater reality or collective existence in Life out there.
That's good enough.

What the real issue is: how do we define how to work individually, in relationships and collectively?

Now if you can spell out basically what you believe about truth, peace and justice,
that should align with what is taught in religions minus the symbolism.

So if we can do that, we can translate what God and Jesus mean into secular terms
and talk about the exact same concepts principles and process. We can align
common sense terms with the "collective symbolism" for "all humanity going through a universal process"
of realizing spiritual peace and justice on a global scale.

This thread isn't about humanity coming together for some greater purpose.

We can talk about that some other time.

This thread is about whether or not anyone can prove god.

The lofty goal you have of uniting humanity is nice, it really is......but this is a thread concerning the existence of god. Not abstract god meaning ANYTHING you want it to mean, because the discussion then becomes necessarily meaningless

This thread is about whether or not a divine, self aware being created everything.

 

[emilynghiem]

But that hinges on your notions of what God is. I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).

If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it
Ha Ha, you are a riot!!

I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!

You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us? And How?

No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.

So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.

Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.

From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
* some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
* some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
* and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.

So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.

it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.

MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.

Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.

God is everything
Everything exists
Therefore, god is real!

Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.

For example, I can throw out the idea that
human nature is body/mind/spirit
or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality

and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.

Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.

And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
motivating or inspiring it for us.

And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.

So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?

I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:

I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.

OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.

Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!

The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.

Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
Like duh!

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

IOW you define god as that which cannot exist.

I on the other hand, define god as everything that exists.

 

[emilynghiem]

My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.

I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.

OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.

So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.

What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
Christian construct of God being rejected.

So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.

What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.

What do I call reality? Reality.
What do I call the universe? The universe.
What do I call existence? Existence.

God doesn't even apply, everything is already defined in and of itself. Calling it 'god' is a futile attempt to STRETCH or move the goalposts intellectually in order to justify belief in god.

It's not rational to do that, its partaking in a rather frivolous activity.

Good, we can just stick with Universe and what you call the greater reality or collective existence in Life out there.
That's good enough.

What the real issue is: how do we define how to work individually, in relationships and collectively?

Now if you can spell out basically what you believe about truth, peace and justice,
that should align with what is taught in religions minus the symbolism.

So if we can do that, we can translate what God and Jesus mean into secular terms
and talk about the exact same concepts principles and process. We can align
common sense terms with the "collective symbolism" for "all humanity going through a universal process"
of realizing spiritual peace and justice on a global scale.

This thread isn't about humanity coming together for some greater purpose.

We can talk about that some other time.

This thread is about whether or not anyone can prove god.

The lofty goal you have of uniting humanity is nice, it really is......but this is a thread concerning the existence of god. Not abstract god meaning ANYTHING you want it to mean, because the discussion then becomes necessarily meaningless

This thread is about whether or not a divine, self aware being created everything.

Yes, and I am talking about the process that proves itself,
that it is possible to form a CONSENSUS on God.

Just like we AGREE that gravity works, or that people dream dreams at night.
We can all reach AGREEMENT of what we mean or don't mean by God.

So that is the closest we can come to proving it, but showing
we can agree what we're talking about.

I'm trying to explain to MD that with the same effort and process
it takes to reach agreement on TAG, you can go ahead and resolve
what is the truth about spiritual healing, and the process of forgiveness
in bringing peace to all relationships on the planet for world peace.

Anything faith-based is going to require the same process of
forgiving and letting go of differences if we are gong to get past them
and focus on something we agree is more beneficial to common goals.

So by the time we get to that understanding OF COURSE we are
going to agree to focus on solving real problems. If it takes the same
amount of energy and work to do, why not focus on something real?

 

[G.T.]

No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.

So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.

Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.

From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
* some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
* some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
* and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.

So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.

it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.

MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.

Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.

God is everything
Everything exists
Therefore, god is real!

Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.

For example, I can throw out the idea that
human nature is body/mind/spirit
or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality

and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.

Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.

And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
motivating or inspiring it for us.

And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.

So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?

I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:

I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.

OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.

Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!

The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.

Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
Like duh!

MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.

Everything is not proven to BE a creation.

What are you missing here?

It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.

Stop wasting my time please

I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.

Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

The TAG doesn't argue that they are "brought into existence by a 'transcendent' mind", so does this mean that you agree with the TAG or do you just like arguing with straw men because the real argument makes your head hurt?

It's A: A = A, liar. The law of identity is in our minds first. It sounds like you're arguing materialism. What's your empirical proof for that, Einstein?

 

[emilynghiem]

Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.

From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
* some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
* some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
* and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.

So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.

it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.

MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.

Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.

God is everything
Everything exists
Therefore, god is real!

Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.

For example, I can throw out the idea that
human nature is body/mind/spirit
or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality

and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.

Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.

And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
motivating or inspiring it for us.

And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.

So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?

I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:

I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.

OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.

Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!

The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.

Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
Like duh!

MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.

Everything is not proven to BE a creation.

What are you missing here?

It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.

Stop wasting my time please

I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.

Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.

Both MD and Justin both said God does not have to be limited to just Creator.

 

[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.

The TAG doesn't argue that they are "brought into existence by a 'transcendent' mind", so does this mean that you agree with the TAG or do you just like arguing with straw men because the real argument makes your head hurt?

It's A: A = A, liar. The law of identity is in our minds first. It sounds like you're arguing materialism. What's your empirical proof for that, Einstein?

The law is in our minds.

What the law represents exists in reality. Dumbfuck.

You're best to just take a step aside little dweeb.

 

[G.T.]

Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.

God is everything
Everything exists
Therefore, god is real!

Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.

For example, I can throw out the idea that
human nature is body/mind/spirit
or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality

and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.

Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.

And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
motivating or inspiring it for us.

And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.

So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?

I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:

I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.

OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.

Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!

The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.

Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
Like duh!

MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.

Everything is not proven to BE a creation.

What are you missing here?

It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.

Stop wasting my time please

I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.

Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.

Both MD and Justin both said God does not have to be limited to just Creator.

That doesn't matter.

The creator part in and of itself sort of has to be PROVEN in order for them to say "WE PROVED IT."

and TAG is a childish attempt at that. Wicked childish.