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

[Hollie]

The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created.

So you believe that logic is something beyond the power of God to create?

Interesting.

As you have created a version of gawds who placate your fears and superstitions, you can have them create whatever you wish.


Interesting.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.

 

[amrchaos]

All the false accusations and name calling--for what reason?

No, MD I did not call you a troll
I said you are running the risk of being called a troll.

That was due to many of the arguments you were initiating for no reason and the numerous long-winded posts you were making that pretty much was rude and insulting for other posters.

I did not call you a troll--
But you run the risk of being labelled a troll.

See the difference? I thought I said it in a manner that was as neutral as possible.

And about your argument--I told you the problems already. I m not going back to that tiring exercise...Post it in one of those Catholic Forums I suggested and you will get a really spirited debate with them I'm sure.

 

[G.T.]

Presuppers have been in 3d all night.

dip, duck and dodge.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes

Hold it Emily,

I have to warn you about using empirical evidence. What can be assumed from it and its value to an argument can vary from person to person.

Think bout it this way--there are currently several competing theories all based on basically the same evidence--our reality. Those several theories are not resolvable despite everyone looking at the same evidence. In fact there are counter-theories that claim to disprove other theories.


No one is going to concede their position because it involves accepting something they doubt is true based upon the evidence. (Hey I just described the field of cosmology!!)

Others are disregarding evidence because they feel it is irrelevant, suspect or having explainations not related to the(or their) bigger picture.

In such a situation, simple talking to one another is not going to work. What is needed is some kind of information that all can agree on and use to come to the same conclusion from.

Yes thats why I offered to set up scientific studies on spiritual healing
To isolate one area that empirical process can apply to.

 

[Inevitable]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

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

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

He isn't. If there was proof of God there would be no faith there would be no religion. There would just be facts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Th

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.

That's not right. He defined God as "a sentient Being of unparalleled greatness" who is the Creator, which would mean a divinity that has all the features of consciousness that we have, only infinite in their magnitude. From where I'm standing it sure looks like you like to argue against straw men a lot because the real arguments hurt your head or maybe its the orifice of your butt that keeps getting hurt. Liars are cowards. What a sorry excuse of a man you are.

Thats great Justin. Maybe you can act as a go between where points like this get missed that could be bridged.

As for GT look at the three points terms for laying out the default source position instead of calling this God. Why cant we align along
Those points, arent they close enough in value to be equivalent parallels.

 

[Inevitable]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.

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

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

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

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

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

First you have to define what God is. And people don't really agree on what God is, or what constitutes a god in general.

Because you are an atheist I am sure you know this.

Any proof of gods is based on the inversion of science. People who find "proof" start with a conclusion verses a hypothesis. They set out to prove god verses seeking to answer questions.

 

[amrchaos]

Yes

Hold it Emily,

I have to warn you about using empirical evidence. What can be assumed from it and its value to an argument can vary from person to person.

Think bout it this way--there are currently several competing theories all based on basically the same evidence--our reality. Those several theories are not resolvable despite everyone looking at the same evidence. In fact there are counter-theories that claim to disprove other theories.


No one is going to concede their position because it involves accepting something they doubt is true based upon the evidence. (Hey I just described the field of cosmology!!)

Others are disregarding evidence because they feel it is irrelevant, suspect or having explainations not related to the(or their) bigger picture.

In such a situation, simple talking to one another is not going to work. What is needed is some kind of information that all can agree on and use to come to the same conclusion from.

Yes thats why I offered to set up scientific studies on spiritual healing
To isolate one area that empirical process can apply to.

Well--have you heard of the radio show Coast to Coast?

The host--George Noory--tends to interview people that investigates things from the supernatural, spiritual, and other topics(warning--some of them are really bizarre)

He has talked about prayer and even conducted mass group prayers with his listeners. I think he has written a book dealing with similiar topic.

Of course, I am referring you to a radio host, which might not be a good start. However he does tend to cover spiritual topics from time to time.

Maybe you should check his web page and see if something like what you are looking for is there. Its a good chance he has talked to someone that has done what you re suggesting.

 

[Brucethethinker]

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

If nothing can exist without being created by the creator, then what created the creator? I do believe you're getting close.

 

[G.T.]

Leaving it to "anyone can define god as whatever" is akin to calling the sky "unicorn" instead of sky, going outside, looking up - - - and there, you see unicorns.

it leaves the discussion at the starting line.

 

[Boss]

By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.

It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your Seven Things argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.

Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your Seven Things argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.

 

[Boss]

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

If nothing can exist without being created by the creator, then what created the creator? I do believe you're getting close.

The Creator is non-material... doesn't require creation. When we speak of 'creation' it is in the context of things within our reality of existence in a material universe or concepts pertaining to those material things. God is not a material thing. This is why I reject the notion that God is a "sentient being."

 

[BreezeWood]

because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect.

all living beings by crossing the void as Columbus crossed the Atlantic in search of the beyond and finding its substance will attain the least perfection necessary for Admittance to the Everlasting - and Judgement for allowance by the Almighty ...

by reaching the pinnacle of knowledge is itself the answered goal to attain perfection. -

there is no judgement for those that are less than perfect - whether their belief is true or not, sad but true.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Reality = prescriptive.
Logic = descriptive (of reality).
God = hypothesis.

Any questions?

LOL!

The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive, dummy, and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things. You don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy correlates with the Is-Ought dichotomy as ultimately premised on the subject-object dichotomy. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions of human cognition on the basis of the rational-empirical dichotomy if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.

The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Now that is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is not an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only! And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.

And I find it hilarious that Amrchaos is throwing the term troll at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that he nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.

I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:

The intrinsically organic principle of identity cannot be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it is the intrinsically indispensable
organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the prescriptive and the descriptive levels of apprehension.​

Further, the idea of God in and of itself is a fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only—in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct—for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a valid, might or might not be true value, not merely a might or might not be true value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility in the latter.

In science it is neither a hypothesis or a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent, dummy.

Oh, wait! Any questions?

 

[G.T.]

Reality = prescriptive.
Logic = descriptive (of reality).
God = hypothesis.

Any questions?

LOL!

The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive, dummy, and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things. You don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy correlates with the Is-Ought dichotomy as ultimately premised on the subject-object dichotomy. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions of human cognition on the basis of the rational-empirical dichotomy if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.

The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Now that is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is not an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only! And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.

And I find it hilarious that Amrchaos is throwing the term troll at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that he nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.

I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:

The intrinsically organic principle of identity cannot be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it is the intrinsically indispensable
organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the prescriptive and the descriptive levels of apprehension.​

Further, the idea of God in and of itself is an fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only--in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct--for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a valid, might or might not be true value, not merely a might or might not be true value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility in the latter.

In science it is neither a hypothesis or a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent, dummy.

Oh, wait! Any questions?

Sure,

do you know how fucking stupid this response was?

Logic is not prescriptive. Logic is descriptive. But good luck with he rest of your dumbfuckery.

Logic does not literally dictate that a=a, it describes that an apple is an apple, the apple being the apple is whats prescriptive.


Of course a presupper NECESSARILY doesn't understand this distinction. Did you think I didnt already KNOW?

THATS WHY I TYPED IT.

 

[Boss]

Leaving it to "anyone can define god as whatever" is akin to calling the sky "unicorn" instead of sky, going outside, looking up - - - and there, you see unicorns.

it leaves the discussion at the starting line.

But what you don't seem to understand is, that's exactly what Atheists do. They "define God as whatever" and then reject the notion. They look up and don't see the God they defined, so God becomes unreal and unbelievable.

My personal argument for God is not that "anyone can define God as whatever" but that God can't truly be defined by infallible humans, we lack the ability to do this. (Analogy: Monkeys trying to explain nuclear fission.) We are aware of something greater than self, we call it spiritual because we created that word for it. We call the benefits of our spiritual connection "blessings" because we developed that word too.

 

[G.T.]

Leaving it to "anyone can define god as whatever" is akin to calling the sky "unicorn" instead of sky, going outside, looking up - - - and there, you see unicorns.

it leaves the discussion at the starting line.

But what you don't seem to understand is, that's exactly what Atheists do. They "define God as whatever" and then reject the notion. They look up and don't see the God they defined, so God becomes unreal and unbelievable.

My personal argument for God is not that "anyone can define God as whatever" but that God can't truly be defined by infallible humans, we lack the ability to do this. (Analogy: Monkeys trying to explain nuclear fission.) We are aware of something greater than self, we call it spiritual because we created that word for it. We call the benefits of our spiritual connection "blessings" because we developed that word too.

You're defining god as "undefinable"



derp a derp derp derp

also, we are not aware of something greater than us - - - - - some are simply convinced of such with no demonstrable evidence.

so sorry. you can call it "they wont accept the evidence" all you want, but sorry guy, that's weak as fuck.

 

[Boss]

Leaving it to "anyone can define god as whatever" is akin to calling the sky "unicorn" instead of sky, going outside, looking up - - - and there, you see unicorns.

it leaves the discussion at the starting line.

But what you don't seem to understand is, that's exactly what Atheists do. They "define God as whatever" and then reject the notion. They look up and don't see the God they defined, so God becomes unreal and unbelievable.

My personal argument for God is not that "anyone can define God as whatever" but that God can't truly be defined by infallible humans, we lack the ability to do this. (Analogy: Monkeys trying to explain nuclear fission.) We are aware of something greater than self, we call it spiritual because we created that word for it. We call the benefits of our spiritual connection "blessings" because we developed that word too.

You're defining god as "undefinable"

derp a derp derp derp

also, we are not aware of something greater than us - - - - - some are simply convinced of such with no demonstrable evidence.

so sorry. you can call it "they wont accept the evidence" all you want, but sorry guy, that's weak as fuck.

We most certainly ARE aware of something greater than self and always have been. In fact, we even created a word to describe the phenomenon in humans which occurs as a direct result of this awareness... inspiration.

I only define God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent spiritual energy or force greater than self. I don't apply any human attributes. I believe it is futile for humans to attempt to define God further. I understand why we do it, we long for understanding of something we're intrinsically aware of.

And I don't know about weak or strong, but it's a fact that you cannot accept evidence for something you don't believe exists in your mind. You have prejudiced your thinking process and objectivity by closing your mind to the possibility of something, so no amount of evidence will suffice, and will not even be acknowledged as evidence.

To demonstrate, let's conduct a little experiment here. I am going to state that I do not believe you exist, you're not real, I don't believe in you. Can you prove here on the Internet to me, that you do indeed exist? Okay, before you begin, let me go ahead and tell you that I am already prepared to reject any evidence you present for your existence. So... no need to link me to a facebook page or post a picture of your driver's license or birth certificate, because I'll reject those as "anecdotal" and not evidence. Go ahead... Prove to me you exist?

 

[Brucethethinker]

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

If nothing can exist without being created by the creator, then what created the creator? I do believe you're getting close.

The Creator is non-material... doesn't require creation. When we speak of 'creation' it is in the context of things within our reality of existence in a material universe or concepts pertaining to those material things. God is not a material thing. This is why I reject the notion that God is a "sentient being."

So, are you retracting your statement "God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists."? Did god only create "material" things? You really should have your arguments thought out before posting them.