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

[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 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.

It's nature is prescriptive/normative, dummy. It's inherent properties of delineation direct our minds in the processes of defining, describing and also, for that matter, apprehending the pertinent inferences or extrapolations about things at both the prescriptive and the descriptive levels of apprehension, dummy.

If you knew what you were talking about (shades of Amrchaos with his nonsensical conflation of the deductive-inductive and the rational-empirical dichotomies), you wouldn't have bumped your head, i.e., missed the pertinent distinction regarding logic's nature and inherent properties, and the cognitive activities to which it is applied.

The nature of the natural/physical laws is descriptive.

The nature of the laws of human thought is prescriptive.

Both describe; albeit, logic describes how reason should work, how it should be applied and how its delineations should direct our minds to define and describe other things. Logic is essentially something that we do automatically due to its inherent properties of delineation when we contemplate or investigate things.


Essay Is-Ought Explained - RationalWiki

The Nature of Logic

Normative - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[G.T.]

My.origina statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[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."

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.

You seem to be attributing MY post to Rawlings. The second quote you posted in MINE, not his.

I have addressed both points. God is not material, so there is no necessity for God to be created. God created everything. Nothing created God.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Shut up, troll. You didn't argue any problems about the OBJECTIVE facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. You continue to make bald declarations, you space cadet, on the basis of solipsism that are not relevant to the presuppositions of this OP and the qualification upon which The Seven Things are premised. This has been explained to you already, at least four times. You have never acknowledge these things directly; hence, you have not demonstrated any factual or logical problems regarding The Seven Things. You are a liar, for we are well past the point of any possible misunderstanding. Or are you telling us that you're dumber than dirt? I know precisely the kind of games atheists play on this forum. Half of you guys are sociopaths.

There are posts on this thread that have addressed your concerns. Now either start acknowledging them or insult for insult will be all you get from me, punk.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

My.origina statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Sociopath. The facts backed by citations right in front of you.

It's nature is prescriptive/normative. It's inherent properties of delineation direct our minds in the processes of defining, describing and also, for that matter, apprehending the pertinent inferences or extrapolations about things at both the prescriptive and the descriptive levels of apprehension.

If you knew what you were talking about (shades of Amrchaos with his nonsensical conflation of the deductive-inductive and the rational-empirical dichotomies), you wouldn't have bumped your head, i.e., missed the pertinent distinction regarding logic's nature and inherent properties, and the cognitive activities to which it is applied.

The nature of the natural/physical laws is descriptive.

The nature of the laws of human thought is prescriptive.

Both describe; albeit, logic describes how reason should work, how it should be applied and how its delineations should direct our minds to define and describe other things. Logic is essentially something that we do automatically due to its inherent properties of delineation when we contemplate or investigate things.


Essay Is-Ought Explained - RationalWiki

The Nature of Logic

Normative - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[G.T.]

Being a robot is a human attribute?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

My.origina statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Sociopath. If you're going to argue that the nature of logic is descriptive than state your materialistic bias clearly for all to see.


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?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Being a robot is a human attribute?

The laws of logic are prescriptive. That is to say, the laws of logic tell us how we ought to think. However, if atheism is true, we can only have descriptive laws. When I say descriptive, I mean to say that whatever is descriptive merely describes something. In contrast prescriptive things tell us how we ought to do something or think about something. The skeptic philosopher, David Hume, has pointed out that you can't get an "ought" from an "is." This means that you cannot get a prescriptive value from a descriptive value. In a universe where God does not exist, how would we get any prescriptive values? Certainly, we can't justify prescriptive values by merely describing them. They must be grounded in something. Perhaps the atheist may argue that the laws of logic are a description of how people think. This would make communication unintelligible, for if the laws of logic are descriptive, than anyone can be justified in not accepting them, because they have no binding value.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More on the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive (normative) thought . . . in ethics:

Descriptive ethics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[G.T.]

The laws of logic are a conceptual means to describe reality.

You're the dummy.

 

[amrchaos]

OK

I had too put both those characters on ignore. I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The laws of logic are a conceptual means to describe reality.
You're the dummy.

Sweet! GT puts himself down for The Seven Things again, Part I: See Post #3945.

Even Amrchaos, our neighborhood solipsist, should be able to appreciate this one, in spite of the confusion of his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy and, consequently, is earlier misinterpretations of my posts.

Regarding the emboldened portion of your post: as I already explained, yes and no, for they are the means by which we define and describe some things directly and other things indirectly, hence, not in the way in which your expression would suggest.

Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.

This tells me you don't really understand the point that the guy in the video from whom you obviously got your notion, albeit, as mangled, is trying to make! The point the guy in the video is trying to make, which doesn't logically hold up, by the way, is a standard in the materialistic atheist's arsenal used to attack the TAG. It's nothing new to me. It's old news.

Logic is the prescriptive means by which we properly delineate the various properties and processes of existents in order to define and describe how they are, beginning with the normative standards of thought and inference/extrapolation. Hence, the fundamental nature of logic is a priori prescriptive.

Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.

The fundamental nature of the physical laws of nature are a posteriori descriptive as they describe how nature works.

Logic, at the human level, does not directly describe the realities (properties and processes) of nature! Logic is immaterial!

Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.

With the rational delineations of logic within our minds, we a priori establish the normative standards of (1) thought and (2) inference/extrapolation for justified true belief/knowledge, directly, then we should (ought!) objectively apply these standards to what (is!) the apparent reality of the various properties and processes of the existents outside our minds, in order to define and describe how they apparently are: ergo, we indirectly infer/extrapolate the physical laws of nature which are what actually describes, directly, the properties and processes of nature . . . or so we believe based on the assumption that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliably synchronized with the apparent actualities of the properties and processes of the empirical world of being outside our minds.

Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.

Or are you suggesting that we are not bound to the oughts of logic's prescriptive/normative nature and the standards thereof and can just describe reality any damn way we please as if human consciousness had primacy over existence? No. I don't think that's what you really want to say about the laws of logic at the prescriptive level of human apprehension at all.

LOL!

Or maybe, just maybe, you're conscious of a the logic that would be universally descriptive in nature at a transcendent level of being above it all, you know, for a Mind Whose consciousness would have primacy over all of existence.

LOL!

Oops. Is that what you're thinking? Did you make a Freudian solip like Mr. Solipsist did earlier? LOL!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

OK

I had too put both those characters on ignore. I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.

Yeah. I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you. Check?

I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir! Check?

And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing? Good. Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sweet! GT puts himself down for The Seven Things again, Part II: See Post #3945.

GT, Do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?

No, of course not.

The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic according to "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily prescriptive/normative in nature, they do not directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!

Hence, he concludes that they are not necessarily universal truths and do not necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.

And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah." Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.

(Oh, I'm sorry, Amrchaos, am I insulting people again? Yeah. Well maybe, just maybe, I'm fed with damn fools calling me an idiot or a liar.)

Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.

However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy: the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments from ignorance/beg the question.

(Oh, by the way, Amrchaos, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)


But:

We do not impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition . . . because the latter are the logical necessities of formal logic that do not go away regardless of what labels morons slap on them; we only apply the fallacies of informal logic to (1) the secondary propositions of logical possibility apparent to human cognition when they are fallaciously/mistakenly asserted as if they were (2) logical necessities of human cognition (you know, because they're not actually the latter at all, but the former, i.e., the secondary propositions of logical possibility).

If it were sensible to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, all of the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic would be fallacies, including axioms that never go away like 2 + 2 = 4.​

IDIOTS!

 

[Hollie]

My.origina statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Sociopath. If you're going to argue that the nature of logic is descriptive than state your materialistic bias clearly for all to see.


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?

Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers

Sweet! GT puts himself down for The Seven Things again, Part II

GT, Do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?

No, of course not.

The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic according to "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily prescriptive/normative in nature, they do not directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!

Hence, he concludes that they are not necessarily universal truths and do not necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.

And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah." Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.

(Oh, I'm sorry, Amrchaos, am I insulting people again? Yeah. Well maybe, just maybe, I'm fed with damn fools calling me an idiot or a liar.)

Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.

However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy: the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments from ignorance/beg the question.

(Oh, by the way, Amrchaos, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)

But:

(1) We do not impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition . . . because they are the logical necessities of formal logic that do not go away regardless of what label morons slap on them; we only apply the fallacies of informal logic to the secondary propositions of logical possibility apparent to human cognition when they are fallaciously/mistakenly asserted as the logical necessities of the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition (you know, because they're not actually the latter but the former, i.e., the secondary propositions of logical possibility). If it were reasonable to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, there would be no primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic.​

IDIOTS!

Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers

Looky there! Hollie said something that's right!

Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.

Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature, as if logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does. Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?

Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that logic is descriptive in nature: as if logic did not a priori provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.

Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT. LOL!

Oh, wait! Don't do that after all! She finally got something right. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!

Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.

LOL! What boy, you dimwit? You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right! LOL! Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.

 

[Justin Davis]

Th

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.

Emily, I don't see how I can bridge the gap with people who keep arguing against straw men. The only left is to laugh at them.

 

[Justin Davis]

My.origina statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Sociopath. If you're going to argue that the nature of logic is descriptive than state your materialistic bias clearly for all to see.


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?

Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers

Sweet! GT puts himself down for The Seven Things again, Part II

GT, Do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?

No, of course not.

The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic according to "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily prescriptive/normative in nature, they do not directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!

Hence, he concludes that they are not necessarily universal truths and do not necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.

And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah." Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.

(Oh, I'm sorry, Amrchaos, am I insulting people again? Yeah. Well maybe, just maybe, I'm fed with damn fools calling me an idiot or a liar.)

Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.

However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy: the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments from ignorance/beg the question.

(Oh, by the way, Amrchaos, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)

But:

(1) We do not impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition . . . because they are the logical necessities of formal logic that do not go away regardless of what label morons slap on them; we only apply the fallacies of informal logic to the secondary propositions of logical possibility apparent to human cognition when they are fallaciously/mistakenly asserted as the logical necessities of the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition (you know, because they're not actually the latter but the former, i.e., the secondary propositions of logical possibility). If it were reasonable to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, there would be no primary axioms/tautologies of formal logic.​

IDIOTS!

Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.

So Rawlings is right about everything, right?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.

what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?

.

 

[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.

Here babycakes.
While you are acting like a defensive pit bull barking and marking your territory,
here's a bone I'll throw your way to chew on:

Search Results

1. Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
   Wikipedia
   
   Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument for God's existence by the ... From axioms 1 through 4, Gödel argued that in some possible world there exists God.
   ‎History of Gödel's proof - ‎Outline of Gödel's proof - ‎See also - ‎Notes
   
   
2. Is There Mathematical Proof of God? - Christianity - About.com
   christianity.about.com › ... › Inspirational Bible Devotions by Topic
   
   Mathematical Proof of God - Jupiterimages / Getty images ... Through his spiritual struggle in the months following his father's death, Jack discovered something ...
3. Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - Spiegel Online
   SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten › English Site › Germany › Science
   Der Spiegel
   
   Oct 23, 2013 - Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel kept his proof of God's existence a ... Now two scientists say they have proven it mathematically using a computer. ... The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are ...
4. Scientists Prove God Exists? Austrian Researchers Use ...
   Christian News The Christian Post › world
   The Christian Post
   
   Oct 31, 2013 - Two scientists have declared they have proved the existence of God using nothing more than advanced mathematics and a computer.
5. Two Germans with a MacBook prove that God exists « Why ...
   whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/.../two-germa...
   Why Evolution is True
   
   Nov 1, 2013 - Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct — at least on a mathematical level — by way of higher ...
6. God Exists, Says Math: Modal Logic and Software Prove ...
   God Exists Says Math Modal Logic and Software Prove G del s Logicgodel-right-god.../38801
   
   Oct 31, 2013 - Modern software and math have verified Gödel's proofs of a being that ...'S', through a given point 'G' that is not on a different straight line 'L' ...
7. Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - ABC News
   abcnews.go.com › Technology
   ABC News
   
   Oct 27, 2013 - But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the ... what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology. ... The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are ...
8. The Mathematical Proof of God's Existence - YouTube
   View attachment 33922► 6:41► 6:41
   The Mathematical Proof of God s Existence - YouTube
   Aug 16, 2007 - Uploaded by Arthur Taylor
   I wrote this proof in 2003, in an attempt to convince my collegemath ... God can satisfy the thirst for order and certainty,throughthe order of ...

Sorry, but I don't understand your point. I've argued these very things from the beginning. I even discussed all of these various proofs in the linguistics and mathematics of organic logic, in the linguistics and mathematics of model logic with computer simulations in detail. Logic and math prove God's existence. That's the whole point of #3, #4 and #6 of The Seven Things. All of the proofs you just listed are premised on the transcendental or the ontological proofs, the most powerful proofs for God's existence in that order. They are axioms. #3, #4 and #6 are based on these proofs in linguistics and math! The reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin couple with the Ontological Argument, which is what Gödel's mathematical proof is based on, prove #3 and #4! The other mathematical proofs based on the transcendental argument prove #6!

There are also proofs in the calculus of infinitesimals regarding the necessity of a multidimensional reality. The ramifications of the theories of special and general relativity, the ramifications of quantum physics scream God's existence. Let me tell you something: if Newton were alive today in the face of these things, which he dreamed would someday be possible, that would resoundingly demonstrate the necessity of God's existence, via what we know about mathematics and physics today, he'd be looking at the many atheist scientists of today as if they had lost their minds. We have more evidence for God's existence today with what we know from calculus and physics than ever before in history. It is sheer spiritual blindness. Atheism is utter insanity.