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

[Hollie]

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.

Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!

Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!

You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.

 

[G.T.]

Logic being descriptive =\= minds before nature.

Logic is a descriptive tool.

What logic describes is what's prescriptive. Not logic itself.


Tag is - again - NOT AN AXIOM UNTIL YOU CAN RULE OUT OTHER POSSIBILITIES IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE.

the dunce is you Rawlings. You talk in circles and have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Now, lash out and copy paste some more while dip duck dodging that tag is not axiomatic because other possibilities are not rules out. Thick fuck.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

OK Justin, now let us be fair

Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation
because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.

GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that
God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.

And M.D. also stated up front, very clearly, that the reason he works with logical arguments and definitions,
is that SCIENCE cannot prove or disprove but only verify/falsify.

GT and others want scientific proof or they find this logic stuff to be USELESS since it was self-defined to begin with.

What I offer is to show patterns by demonstrating how spiritual healing works by forgiveness,
so there is enough empirical demonstration to show a PATTERN to the PROCESS.

The process can be replicated so Science can Demonstrate, falsify and verify
while writing out the explanation of the pattern and stages of the process can
help with the logistic/global language that MD wants to establish, though he is set on TAG
and I focus on spiritual healing and forgiveness as the key to demonstrating universality.

Emily!

Gödel never asserted any such thing about God. Never! Ever! Show me a link/citation for this nonsense.

You cannot be talking about anything but Gödel's incompleteness theorems regarding the natural numbers, not God's existence! G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Gödel's incompleteness theorems demonstrate that, like in physics, we lack a unified theory for the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity. That's all. In fact, Gödel holds as do many others that the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity is compelling evidence for the necessity of God's existence! Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not undermine the idea of God or throw the question into doubt at all! Where are you getting this nonsense? The various sets of the natural numbers hold true within there individual paradigms! But the problem is that we don't have a universal theory that proves them to be true outside the proofs of the various sets of natural number on the number line of infinity.

The implications correlate with the understanding that while we can comprehend the construct of infinity as such and can cipher the contents and the proofs for the various sets of the natural numbers within there individual paradigms, we cannot comprehend or contain what the entirety of infinity would entail in terms of its limitless potentialities. How could we? We would have to God to comprehend the latter. We can't get outside or above our human perspective of things!


Gödel's proof for God's existence holds!

G del s ontological proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Kurt G del s Ontological Argument

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE

What in the world do you guys think you agree on? Gödel has never asserted that "God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds." Gödel proved God's existence in model logic! The inability to fathom the depths and heights of God has nothing to do with the proof of God's existence in and of itself! By definition, of course we can't grasp the entirety of divine infinity. We're not God. LOL!

Moreover, Justin is talking about the metaphysics of materialism. He is right. It cannot be scientifically verified.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I had Justin on ignore for a bit but somehow my settings reversed.

I think the best path to take at this point of Rawlings' obsessive copy paste meaninglessness while dodging direct refutations is the most logical choice. Pun intended.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!

Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!

You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.

Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[1] Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation
because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.

[2] GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.

Driving the point home!

The first statement is confused. The cosmological order and its constituents are the evidence for God's existence. Period. The strictly empirical proof for God's existence (the Teleological) holds as an inductive argument of probability, just like any other inductive argument. The other proofs are essentially deductive, premised on the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. That proof is incontrovertible.

The second statement is totally false and irresponsible. Godel's ontological proof in modal logic proves God's existence. He never in his life ever asserted any such thing as you claim. And the ramifications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems support God's existence, for crying out loud! The latter do not undermine it at all! But, ultimately, the latter do not pertain to the existence of God one way or the other, directly, except in the sense that the incompleteness theorems prove that only an infinitely transcendent mind could comprehend or contain the entirety of a unifying principle for all logical/mathematical truth. But then we've always intuitively known this to be true in terms of transcendence. Now we have a discrete, rational proof for that understanding of things.

Theoretically, we know that a unified theory for physics is possible because the cosmological order, as least in terms of its material nature, is finite, though it may not necessarily be spatially finite.

Until Gödel, we believed it was theoretically possible to achieve a unified theory for the various numerical systems of the infinite number line that would universally hold true for all numbers. In fact, we thought that we had such a thing at one point . . . at least insofar as the whole numbers were concerned as we worked on ones for the others. It never occurred to us that this quest actually involved a comprehensively descriptive-level perspective.

Then Gödel came along and shattered our illusion. It can't be done, and what is obvious to us today with our 20-20 vision, we apprehend that we should have realized this in terms of numerical systems from the jump because they are of a purely immaterial/rational nature.

We just hadn't made the connection between the numerical construct of infinity and the transcendental construct of infinity before.

GODEL S THEOREMS AND TRUTH

 

[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.

Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!

Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!

You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.

Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.

That is a lie.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I told her this before. You can only move toward inductive probability, and I gave her the proper foundation to use.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!

Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!

You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.

Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.

That is a lie.

You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

I wish I had seen this post before I saw Hollie's. Atheists are so funny and so close minded. They're going to hyper ignore and attack mode because almost everything they've said is so lame.

 

[Justin Davis]

.
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 ?

.

I

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.

Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head. I see what you mean now about atheists now. I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage. Now they run like girls.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Run, phony, run.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

You're the dummy.

Run, phony, run. Run, liar, run.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I told her this before. You can only move toward inductive probability, and I gave her the proper foundation to use.

Um, no, you trolling charlatan.

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.

I told her this before. You can only move toward inductive probability, and I gave her the proper foundation to use.

Um, no, you loathsome charlatan.

We don't need your phony and contrived appeals to fear and ignorance you define as inductive probability to discern truth. Ultimately, it will be the process of science that will explore and discover. In all the instances where science appeared be stymied and the fundamentalist freaks like you insisted that fear and superstition was the answer, reason and rationality was the tool employed toward finding a purely natural causation for existence. Not all the tools of science are in hand and scientific discoveries are on-going which is why no one is obligated to abdicate reason and rationality in favor of living in trembling fear of angry gawds.

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

That's not true. Are you going to ask why that's not true or keep arguing against the proofs for theism that are not based on hypotheses? You don't know what you're talking about. You're like the atheist Hollie who argues against atheists without even realizing that she's proving that the theist's arguments are true. Only you're the opposite Hollie, the theist Hollie who argues that the false arguments of atheists.
Let me ask you this question, even if it sounds silly. Do you believe that you exist?

 

[Hollie]

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.

That's not true. Are you going to ask why that's not true or keep arguing against the proofs for theism that are not based on hypotheses? You don't know what you're talking about. You're like the atheist Hollie who argues against atheists without even realizing that she's proving that the theist's arguments are true. Only you're the opposite Hollie, the theist Hollie who argues that the false arguments of atheists.
Let me ask you this question, even if it sounds silly. Do you believe that you exist?

How creepy. The goofy Pom Pom waver has become my personal stalker.

 

[G.T.]

Trying to determine if Justin is dumber than a shoe or smarter than a can opener.

Foik

 

[Justin Davis]

So easy, even a kid can do it.

Yeah. You and your kid in that video just got your butts handed to you again. You never learn.

 

[G.T.]

Shoe it is.

 

[Hollie]

Shoe it is.

Gotta' be.