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

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dear Boss:
1. to Justin's credit he did point out where MD was losing him on some of the definitions or logic that wasn't consistently used.
so he does try to correct some points with MD and isn't blindly following by any means

Actually, this is inaccurate. Justin did not adequately understand the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. He had the right idea, by the way, vastly superior to Amrchaos' nonsense. He simply was not entirely clear on the fundamental distinction that goes to probability and certainty as it relates to the issue of logical possibility and logical necessity. Now part of his confusion was my fault because in one of my sentences, which I corrected, thanks to Justin, put the terms possibility and necessity together as it related to justified true belief/knowledge. Essentially, the statement was true, albeit, poorly expressed and arguably misleading. Justin picked up on that precisely because I cleared up the matter on the inductive-deductive dichotomy and the logical possibility-logical necessity dichotomy prior to the post that contained the error in expression.

In other words, the piece of the puzzle that remained a bit hazy for him became crystal clear, and as a result he was able to recognized a poorly expressed idea in my following post, a mere error in expression. It was not an error or inconsistency in thought or in logic.

The fact of the matter is that all logical possibilities are cognitive facts in and of themselves; that is to say, it is an objective fact of human cognition, for example, that it is possible that our universe is just one of an unknown number of other universes within a multiverse. That cogitation/proposition, in and of itself, is a logical necessity. The proposition that the object of that proposition has actual substance behind it is another issue altogether. That is a mere logical possibility and a hypothesis in science. It was this distinction that was in my mind at the time that I wrote that sentence. I simply failed to make that distinction clear, for the way the sentence read, on the face it, threw logical necessities and the latter kind of propositions of possibility together relative to justified true belief/knowledge. But in fact I was thinking the former kind, not the latter.

That Justin had a problem with the idea as it was expressed on the face of it is a good thing. He's got it down!

 

[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.

Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.

What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong. That's moonbat crazy.

 

[Justin Davis]

Dear Boss:
1. to Justin's credit he did point out where MD was losing him on some of the definitions or logic that wasn't consistently used.
so he does try to correct some points with MD and isn't blindly following by any means

Actually, this is inaccurate. Justin did not adequately understand the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. He had the right idea, by the way, vastly superior to Amrchaos' nonsense. He simply was not entirely clear on the fundamental distinction that goes to probability and certainty as it relates to the issue of logical possibility and logical necessity. Now part of his confusion was my fault because in one of my sentences, which I corrected, thanks to Justin, put the terms possibility and necessity together as it related to justified true belief/knowledge. Essentially, the statement was true, albeit, poorly expressed and arguably misleading. Justin picked up on that precisely because I cleared up the matter on the inductive-deductive dichotomy and the logical possibility-logical necessity dichotomy prior to the post that contained the error in expression.

In other words, the piece of the puzzle that remained a bit hazy for him became crystal clear, and as a result he was able to recognized a poorly expressed idea in my following post, a mere error in expression. It was not an error or inconsistency in thought or in logic.

The fact of the matter is that all logical possibilities are cognitive facts in and of themselves; that is to say, it is an objective fact of human cognition, for example, that it is possible that our universe is just one of an unknown number of other universes within a multiverse. That cogitation/proposition, in and of itself, is a logical necessity. The proposition that the object of that proposition has actual substance behind it is another issue altogether. That is a mere logical possibility and a hypothesis in science. It was this distinction that was in my mind at the time that I wrote that sentence. I simply failed to make that distinction clear, for the way the sentence read, on the face it, threw logical necessities and the latter kind of propositions of possibility together relative to justified true belief/knowledge. But in fact I was thinking the former kind, not the latter.

That Justin had a problem with the idea as it was expressed on the face of it is a good thing. He's got it down!

Yes that's my understanding of what happened. You got me on the right track, but then I saw that expression near the end of the next post and went "huh" Just when I thought I had it I was confused again. Then I realized it had to be an error in expression because everything else made sense but that. But that's cool because I never thought about the difference between necessary possibilities of thought and just possibilities of substance before either. Now I got the whole thing.

 

[the_human_being]

.
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.

Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.

What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong. That's moonbat crazy.

But isn't that logical? You have your answer.

 

[Justin Davis]

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.

Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.

Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men? Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?

I said this: "God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation."

You imply I said this: "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."

Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?

Here's your argument: "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.

Sorry but that doesn't work.
.

God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.

God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.

Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.

What? The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic. God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism. Truth isn't relative.

 

[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.

Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.

What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong. That's moonbat crazy.

But isn't that logical? You have your answer.

Yeah. Why am wondering? Without God we're all moonbat crazy. I forgot. I remember when I was moonbat crazy before the Holly Spirit got a hold of me and straightened me out.

 

[Hollie]

.
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.

Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.

What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong. That's moonbat crazy.

Yes. Hit us with the math, science and "logic" that proves magic and supernaturalism.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Seven Apparent Whether or Knots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emily sounds like a liar when she repeats lies and fails to understand that it is my contempt for liars and hypocrites she's reading, that it's the likes of her with her fanatical, pseudoscientific claptrap, religious mumbo jumbo with a monetary motive behind it all, who are the jerks.

Are you going recant the lie you told about Gödel or not?

Are you gong to recant the lie you repeated about the TAG or not?

What lies are you talking about?

1. I said that your TAG approach works for those it works for.
And it doesn't work for those it doesn't work for.
That is true, you can see here,
the people who agree that it has validity already believe in a God of some form
and so we relate to what you are saying or trying to say.
The people who DO NOT relate to or agree/believe
do NOT relate to your TAG approach and have stated so clearly!

What is untrue about that?

2. It is common sense that people do not have infinite knowledge
and we could be wrong. that is not a lie, that is just a natural fact
that human perception and knowledge is finite.

What are you interpreting as lying?

Sorry if we are communicating so badly
that I come across as lying to you.

A. Unlike liars who are trying to deny, suppress or manipulate the truth,
my only intent here is to RESOLVE conflicts so ALL people here
including you and me AGREE on what is true and consistent!

So this "lying" business is the exact OPPOSITE of my intent.

B. I am willing to correct whatever came across wrong as lying
because anything false or inconsistent is the opposite of my intent.
Sorry this wasn't clear, to the point where you question
if not attack the integrity of my intent when I have done
nothing but DEFEND yours when others attacked you.
Now I question your integrity if you go so far as to question mine
when I did nothing but defend you. WTF?

C. M.D. Rawlings I think you must have forgiveness issues
to project this wildly off base as to accuse me of lying?

Usually only people who are "lying to themselves"
would EVER accuse me of such a thing. But I don't think
that applies toyou, I think your problem is you don't
trust or forgive people so you are projecting onto them as you just did to me.

My guess is you have just implicated yourself as being
in denial about something, I"m not sure what.

If you are not willing to resolve all issues, that is your projection,
your defensiveness because of some unresolved issue on your side of the fence.

I AM WILLING to resolve the points where you find fault with me.

Please clarify where I miscommunicated so badly as to
be attacked by you as "lying" and I am willing to correct my faults.

Sorry I cannot say that about you.
I saw that you made efforts to make amends with Boss when you went a big overboard,
but to accuse me of lying is WAY beyond that.

So I am puzzled where the [heck] that came from.
I really do not understand that, so please enlighten me by clarifying.

I would like to resolve the issues because I have absolutely
NOTHING to gain by lying here, but am trying to get to the truth
behind each person's position so we can reconcile given our differences that won't change.

The only way this process works is by complete TRANSPARENCY
so how the heck I came across as lying is completely baffling to me.

Please explain and I am glad to correct the errors that caused
this misperception and misunderstanding of my intent!

Nope! This brick, this straw man, ain't flying with me. It's stupid. I don't believe you, Emily. I believe God. The logic he put into our heads doesn't lie. In fact, the only things that were not corrupted in the Fall are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition so that we would be without excuse or be without the means to find our way home with God's help.

The categorical distinction between (1) our finite minds' ability to comprehend infinity as a construct and (2) our inability to comprehend the unlimited potentialities of the infinite Mind is clear. The first is possible and actual. We do it all the time in the logic of linguistics and mathematics with no sweat, insofar as our finitely prescriptive level of apprehension allows this side of transcendency. We in fact do adequately comprehend the construct of infinity and, therefore, comprehend that God is infinitely great. That's all we need to know. So stop with this nonsense that I'm claiming the latter to be possible when in fact all I'm talking about is what we know to be true about God and what is done everyday of the week by humans goes to the fact of the former.

The TAG is true; it cannot be negated. It is a simple, uncomplicated fact of human cognition. It is self-evident. Those who claim otherwise simply refuse to think about it or lie to themselves and others about it. Let God be true and every man a liar. Then there are those who cannot see this simple truth anymore as they are either congenital sociopaths or those who have been turned over to a reprobate mind due to a lifetime of habitual contrariness.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.
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 ?

.

It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of The Seven Things compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him. It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.

mdr: It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of The Seven Things compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him. It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.

that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -

it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.

the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.

.

The simple, yet deeply profound truths of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, the common sense obviously given to you by God that you may know that He exists and what He is like is of no significance to you because you have no faith to believe in anything of any value but yourself. Your god is yourself. You have no faith or confidence in God at all. You don't believe what God has been telling you about Himself all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.

God's "voice" is the commonsensical logic in your mind. As you don't even have enough faith to believe the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park common sense, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you. You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless. You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.

Ultimately, faith is the common sense to believe the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself. God has already proven His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you believe Him or will even take the time to listen to Him because you have no faith or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.

What you lack is faith in God, and because you lack faith in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.

You are the idolater. The only testimony you believe is your own. The only thing you believe in is yourself. The only thing you worship is yourself.

That's the real truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

Dear M.D. Thanks for backing off the personal attacks
and sticking to spelling out the content of your objections and responses.

However, here with BreezeWood I think this is definitely projection.

BW keeps objecting to LIMITING the notion of God to something we perceive and
represent for our own convenience and interests.

BW keeps pointing out that the Almighty is greater than what we perceive.

So BW is trying to be more SELFLESS and IMPERSONAL about it,
instead of people PROJECTING our own self-image on God which comes across as idolatrous!

I don't think what you've said here applies to BW,
but actually explains BW's very objections, where you actually agree something is amiss.

I think the problem both you and BW have is inability or unwillingness to
FORGIVE the fact that people approach or frame God/the Almighty differently.

So you both accuse the other of projecting idolatrous images of God.

You both seem to be saying similar, that these projections run into conflicts or contradictions.

Since both you and BW are essentially arguing similar,
the only reason you do not AGREE with each other is you do not forgive each other's ways of saying the SAME THING!

You don't trust each other's way of presenting, and feel the other person is flawed
and not acknowledging their own bias. Your issue is with each other.

No. BreezeWood is trying to put God into the relativist box. God is not a liar.

 

[Boss]

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.

Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.

Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men? Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?

I said this: "God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation."

You imply I said this: "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."

Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?

Here's your argument: "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.

Sorry but that doesn't work.
.

God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.

God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.

Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.

What? The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic. God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism. Truth isn't relative.

No Justin, YOU are the one not making any sense. You are claiming "God is Logic" ...Well okay, God is the Universe... God is the Sun... God is the Moon... God is Earth... God is Nature... God is Energy... God is Light... God is Humanity... God is the Wind... God is the Rain... God is the Trees... God is the Birds... on and on!

God either created everything and everything is God's creation, or God didn't. You can't run to both arguments as you try to hold both positions to be true. That is irrational, and quite frankly, illogical. I'm sorry if you don't get that, maybe we just have two different views of God? MY God created Logic and is not bound by Logic itself. Do you honestly think if omnipotent God intended to circumvent logic, that wouldn't be possible? If so, then you simply don't believe in an omnipotent God like I do.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What lies are you talking about?

I'm talking about Gödel for starters. Did I stutter?

This is what you wrote: "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."

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 numbers 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.

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

Hi MD thanks for explaining.
A. It seems you are taking Godel literally while I was going with this more liberal interpretation applying to a larger context.

If you disagree with this interpretation we can drop it and just stick to the literal Godel to prevent conflict
and false accusations of my as lying which were completely unfounded. I am sorry you do not feel you owe any such apology, but expect other people to apologize to you if they were to do the same.

You do not seem to practice the tenets of Christianity but expect people to give you credit and respect
though you show none of the same for others unless backed into it as you did for Boss. Very problematic
and I don't think it is fair at all to blame others for rejecting you when you come across as so false and unjust.

Here is the broader interpretation I was using it for:
With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).
Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle

I happen to like how this writer explained this very briefly.

If you prefer YOUR way of saying it, you ALSO referred to
1. God as the source of knowledge
2. science cannot prove anything but is verifying or falsifying

So if you do not agree with using Godel to say these same things,
but only want YOUR way, that is fine. but that is not fair to accuse me of lying
when I am actually defending your points but trying to explain them in different ways or contexts.

B. Without Godel I can still make the same arguments:
Since humans are finite in our perception, knowledge, understanding
and language/ability to communicate
we can never fully express much less prove the whole of God.

We can represent God, and agree what we mean.

I don't need Godel to express that, and sorry if this offended you somehow.

I wish you would take the time to apologize when you offend people.
I had no intent of lying or saying anything offensive,
and you do this constantly, accusing me and also insulting other people here.

And you have yet to acknowledge or apologize.
What does that say about you, and how can you wonder
why people reject theists like you who come across as arrogant assholes?

This is no good. I revised the following two posts on Gödel to make the matter abundantly clear. There is no way your that you notions follow from the facts. Please read carefully as they are not precisely the same posts, but carefully revised so that there can be no misunderstanding.

Emily writes:

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 Gödel’s assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.
Gödel is regarded by many to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle. He is famous for his ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic and is famous for his mathematically revolutionary proofs of the incompleteness theorems and for the transcendental implications thereof!

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. Gödel's ontological proof in modal logic proves God's existence. He never in his life 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 directly, but indirectly, as 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, mathematical proof that underscores this axiom of organic logic.

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 extract an all-encompassing theorem for the various numerical sets of the infinite number line that would universally hold true or unify the variously discrete theorems thereof. 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 the problem of extracting universal theorems for the others. It never occurred to us that this quest actually involved a comprehensively transcendent, 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 now clearly see the problem as something we should have understood from the jump: because the problem is of a purely immaterial/rational nature, it is one of a transcendental nature.

Before Gödel, we had simply failed to make the connection between the numerical construct of infinity, which we do rationally comprehend in terms of its essence, and the transcendental construct of infinity. Gödel himself believed this achievement was possible. That’s what he was working on when he extracted to his amazement the incompleteness theorems instead.

The reason he was able to do this is because after years of frustration of trying to work out universal proofs for the other sets of numbers or an all-encompassing theorem, he intuited the potentiality that there might be something wrong with the standing "universal" for whole numbers and subsequently discovered not only that the theorem for whole numbers did not universally hold as previously believed, but that it was not possible to extract an all-encompassing, numerical theorem at our finitely prescriptive level of apprehension.

It simply can't be done by us. The transcendental ramifications of this fact of human cognition are profound, and they are not relativistic at all, but absolute!

And that's why I nipped Amrchaos' sophomoric conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy, and GT's sophomoric blather about the prescriptive laws of logic-descriptive laws of nature dichotomy in the bud. Finally, the ontological and transcendental proofs for God's existence cannot be negated, Emily! Everyone of GT's sophomoric arguments have been roundly refuted for centuries. If what he and that idiot in the video claim were true, there is no way that these arguments could have withstood the test of time all these centuries.

Just how gullible are you, Emily? See Posts #4129, #4132, #4178 and #4139.

GODEL S THEOREMS AND TRUTH

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic. That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you. God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us. He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this. Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself. The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.

Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity

Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.

I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.

God did not create logic. God is Logic. Logic is not a creation. I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational. Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational. All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary. But you can't get away from logic and you know it.

OK
so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
IS God

this is what I was saying that
God = Creator and God = Creation
are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God

These are not necessarily contradictory!

We agree more than we disagree.

At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.

It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.

Baloney. I'm not going to waste my time repeating what Rawlings already proved. Find the post for yourself or maybe he'll repost it for you. He titled it something like "what’s wrong with Boss’ idea?" What’s wrong with it is that it would mean that truth is relative, so nothing you or anyone says is true, so why say anything at all? How silly is that?

Hi Justin
The Beauty about human experience and expression being relative
is that the PATTERNS still align and show universality in source.

So even though one person uses the Christian trinity,
and another person the Buddhist Three Refuges,
Constitutionalists divide the spectrum as judicial, legislative and executive
and Taoists/Psychologists focus on Mind/Body/Spirit,
Human Nature is still universal, even though we express the laws differently
per person or context.

Isn't that beautiful?

To see there is one source, one universal law motivating all human experience,
but it's okay to express it differently and it's still pointing to the same absolutes!

We can have absolute concrete agreement on universal truths
and we can include diverse expression, unique to each person, at the same time.

Is that not proof that people can be one with God's laws?
That even where we have completely different expressions,
they all follow the same patterns because Human Nature is designed consistently?

This is no good, Emily. Truth is not relative.

Gödel never asserted any such thing about God. 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 as supplemented by their qualifying proofs of exceptions. We simply cannot extract any universal theorems/proofs or any all-encompassing theorem/proof within or without the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity from our finitely prescriptive level of apprehension.

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

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


http://www.decodedscience.com/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801


What in the world do you think that you and GT agree on? Gödel never asserted that "God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."

On the contrary, 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.

That's all.

 

[G.T.]

Tag has not withstood the test of time retard.

There are entire books refuting Kant, who was as short sighted as your MD but slightly less then you, as his understanding of how to communicate actually shits on yours. You're aweful at it. Sorry to say : (

Tag has been a laughing stock of academia, contrary to you LIE that its been peer reviewed which magically a link to a single peer review of tag escapes your lying ass.

Tag is so simple to refute its actually childish.




Presuppers continue to dip duck dodge in cowardly fashion: 'god created knowledge' is neither universally accepted nor are other possibilities for existence ALL ruled out, which BOTH have to be met for "MTAG" to be an axiom. There's your loss, loser. And, another W for your Captain.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we can in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms: everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

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

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

everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

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

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

Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably did argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man: our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.


Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?

Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.

Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.

Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either (1) the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or (2) might not be true.

There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.

But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.

Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.

How did that happen?

Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.

Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency: a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God is perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.

By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.

It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.

God is perfect, not a liar.

Boss' argument Fails.

 

[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 modal 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 of divine attribution allows for the conceptualization and the insertion of divinity as a collective whole of individuals (polytheism) 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 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.

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.

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.

 

[G.T.]

TaG begs the question, it is viciously circular reasoning.

Knock knock, any charlatan home?

 

[percysunshine]

.

I think Rawlings' brain is going to explode if he does not get laid pretty soon.

.

 

[amrchaos]

If we say "God created logic" aren't we putting god beyond logic?

How do we argue about something that exist beyond logic? Don't we need logic to make such an argument?

We can not be certain if something can exist without the logic/rules of logic as we understand them, can we?

I think it is best to say "I don't know" and try not to argue for or against that notion of God.

 

[Boss]

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we can in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms: everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

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

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

everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

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

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

Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably did argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man: our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.


Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?

Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.

Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.

Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either (1) the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or (2) might not be true.

There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.

But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.

Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.

How did that happen?

Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.

Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency: a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God is perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.

By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.

It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.

God is perfect, not a liar.

Boss' argument Fails.

You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your 7 Things argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd.

You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls.

I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.

 

[the_human_being]

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.

I think. Therefore God is.