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

[Justin Davis]

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

 

[Hollie]

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.

One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.

 

[PratchettFan]

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication. So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys. It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage. I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.

 

[sealybobo]

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God. Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.

I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.

I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe. Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people. And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.

So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions. We never get emotional about it. As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.

This is what theists do. They say you'll go to hell. They ask you why you are so angry. Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.

I think the masses are really stupid. Stupid when it comes to politics for sure. They've handed our country and government over to the corporations. Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them. People with blind faith can be convinced of anything. Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy. If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?

Have you ever asked yourself why you, a non believer, keep coming to these threads? I have never told you or another soul that you are going to hell for your non beliefs--I imagine 90% of the Christians posting on message boards have never told you that either. I don't know ANY Christian, except maybe the extreme leftists, who believe everything politicians tell them and even those only believe what leftist politicians tell them. Yet you hold all these notions about what presumable 'all' of us think, believe, say, whatever.

Why is that? What is it that compels you to care? What draws you to threads like this? Why do you give a tinkers dam about what I or any other person of faith thinks about anything? What force pushes you to try to destroy somebody else's faith?

Have you ever wondered about that?

It is the religious right that say we'll burn in hell if we don't believe the miracle stories. If you don't know they do it, pretend you are an atheist on USMB and see all the shit your side says.

And if you don't say it then you are not really a christian because you don't believe what christ himself said. Only through me.

I am part of the 'religious right' I guess and I have never said anyone will burn in hell for any reason. I believe the Bible when it tells us that area is all God's prerogative. And as far as taking sh*t, I've seen a whole bunch more of that dished out from Atheists toward Christians than I have seen Christians dish it out toward Atheists.

Which brings me back to the questions you ignored that I put to you. What brings you to a thread like this? Why would an Atheist be at all interested in a subject re the existence of God? What do you suppose sparks your curiosity? Your interest?

A few years ago I abandoned Christianity but remained religious, spiritual or a theist. I recently became an atheist so like a new born again I'm really interested in this subject. I want to tell everybody. Plus I think religion is bad for people.

But just like all of my born again friends, eventually spreading the word will get old and I'll move on. Like them I'll figure, "what do I care what other people think?" But right now I do care what other people think. Maybe in awhile I'll realize there is nothing I can do about other people and I'll just worry about me.

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.

One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.

I think this is too big of a topic to convince anyone who isn't looking for the truth. If they want to remain in a state of ignorant bliss it's almost impossible to talk them out of it.

Think about all the evidence you can give them. The fact that the bible could be made up. All the mistakes and impossible stories. You can explain to them that science has pretty much explained how why and when we came up with the idea of god(s), show them how they admit/understand all the other religions stories are a crock, explain to them if the whole things an allegory then maybe god is too, if they believe in a generic god, explain that there isn't one shred of evidence or proof suggesting a god exists. Explain that everything has a beginning and end and so how does a god live forever? Explain to them Revelations aren't proof of anything, etc. I mean I could go on and on but each time you think you have proved your point on something, the theists just move on to another topic and you think you have won, but they will argue their same arguments another day. They argue in circles, just like conservatives do in politics. Give you an example. Tax the rich. They'll say that's socialism, communism or class warfare. You'll explain why that's not true and they will then move on to the argument that you can't tax the job creators. Then you explain to them how job creators only hire who they need, so giving them a special tax break for nothing solves nothing. Ultimately they will go back to calling you a commy. See? Argue in circles. Stick and move. They are either dishonest or stupid and don't know they are doing it.

 

[sealybobo]

I do understand some people think they really need god. Maybe they do. Maybe this lie serves a purpose for a lot of people. But I think it is ignorant bliss. That can't be good for a society to remain willfully ignorant because the lie makes them feel good. I welcome rational thought even if it dismisses all organized religions stories. Maybe those religions need to go bye bye and a new one needs to emerge. One where people argue phylisophically that god exists, not that they have talked to him and he told them to start a religion and if people don't believe they go to hell or non believers should die or whatever most theists religions say regardless of what that individual theists thinks.

Get that people? I don't care if you a christian doesn't believe us non believers are going to hell, your church and lord pretty much say it. So you wonder why we don't believe this cult mentality that men 1900 years ago so clearly made up?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication. So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys. It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage. I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

Subjectivity, of course, is antonymic to objectivity, and the key to understanding, not only what the difference between the two is, but understanding what the ultimate essence of each is, is to understand the Subject-Object dichotomy.

But you're wasting your time with PratchettFan. From the jump, I knew exactly what this fool was thinking: objective evidence = physical substance only, and the existence of the cosmos, especially the existence of its rational constituents and the implications of their pertinent apprehensions, isn't evidence of God's existence, because God isn't physical, which, of course, does not logically follow.

He's even deceived himself into believing that the essence of objectivity is a definition one might find in a dictionary proffering only the most rudimentary understanding of the adjectival form of the concept object. His problem isn't a lack of philosophical sophistication. His problem is a lack of commonsense. He's a stone-cold idiot. But mostly, his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door. In the meantime, he damn well does recognize the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin, and the absolute, universally apparent laws of logic. He also knows damn well or did know, before God gave his mind over to reprobation, that the cosmos is objective evidence of God's existence. But of course the absolute objects of axiomatic truths apprehended by the rational subjects of existence are by their very nature objective evidence of God's existence too.

By the way, a serious contemplation of the Subject-Object dichotomy reveals profound insights into why God must be, and if you be still and listen, if you pay real close attention, embrace the almost visceral, epiphanic implications, you might even hear the recording of God's voice imprinted on your mind. Boo!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

. . . what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys. It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.

Is that an axiom or are you just pulling on our legs?

. . . but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.

So are you saying that your apprehension of the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos, which you have repeatedly admitted to have, is (1) a subjective belief or (2) a propositional absolute of universal knowledge? And what causes you to apprehend, just as everyone else does, the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos?

*crickets chirping*

You've never asked yourself why you have this impression? Where it comes from? What the impetus of it is?

By the way when are you going to falsify the objectively apparent, universal knowledge of the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yeah right!

How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.

Not one single word in there about "the implications of general relativity and quantum physics". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".

Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.

I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics. The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity. It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.

Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.

Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?

Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.

The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.

Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;

Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery

I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar. I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God. As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.

Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".

That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.

You just wanted to ridicule, and you did lie by imply that I said and thought things that I did not say or think. And you're lying again. God = vacuum fluctuations. The only one who thought or said anything like that is you and the standard Big Bang is not produced by fluctuations, the singularity is. I'm aware of the recycling universe model. I mentioned the old idea of a static universe and asked you about the Big Bang because you seemed to be implying that the oscillating model which means no end in time accounts for the beginning of time.

You aren't making any sense at all.

I suggest that you ask someone to explain what I actually posted before you continue to fling out more baseless allegations.

 

[PratchettFan]

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication. So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys. It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage. I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

Subjectivity, of course, is antonymic to objectivity, and the key to understanding, not only what the difference between the two is, but understanding what the ultimate essence of each is, is to understand the Subject-Object dichotomy.

But you're wasting your time with PratchettFan. From the jump, I knew exactly what this fool was thinking: objective evidence = physical substance only, and the existence of the cosmos, especially the existence of its rational constituents and the implications of their pertinent apprehensions, isn't evidence of God's existence, because God isn't physical, which, of course, does not logically follow.

He's even deceived himself into believing that the essence of objectivity is a definition one might find in a dictionary proffering only the most rudimentary understanding of the adjectival form of the concept object. His problem isn't a lack of philosophical sophistication. His problem is a lack of commonsense. He's a stone-cold idiot. But mostly, his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door. In the meantime, he damn well does recognize the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin, and the absolute, universally apparent laws of logic. He also knows damn well or did know, before God gave his mind over to reprobation, that the cosmos is objective evidence of God's existence. But of course the absolute objects of axiomatic truths apprehended by the rational subjects of existence are by their very nature objective evidence of God's existence too.

By the way, a serious contemplation of the Subject-Object dichotomy reveals profound insights into why God must be, and if you be still and listen, if you pay real close attention, embrace the almost visceral, epiphanic implications, you might even hear the recording of God's voice imprinted on your mind. Boo!

Bullshit.

 

[PratchettFan]

. . . what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys. It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.

Is that an axiom or are you just pulling on our legs?

. . . but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.

So are you saying that your apprehension of the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos, which you have repeatedly admitted to have, is (1) a subjective belief or (2) a propositional absolute of universal knowledge? And what causes you to apprehend, just as everyone else does, the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos?

*crickets chirping*

You've never asked yourself why you have this impression? Where it comes from? What the impetus of it is?

By the way when are you going to falsify the objectively apparent, universal knowledge of the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos. But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God. All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true". If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.

 

[sealybobo]

. . . what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys. It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.

Is that an axiom or are you just pulling on our legs?

. . . but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.

So are you saying that your apprehension of the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos, which you have repeatedly admitted to have, is (1) a subjective belief or (2) a propositional absolute of universal knowledge? And what causes you to apprehend, just as everyone else does, the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos?

*crickets chirping*

You've never asked yourself why you have this impression? Where it comes from? What the impetus of it is?

By the way when are you going to falsify the objectively apparent, universal knowledge of the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos. But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God. All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true". If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.

3 kinds of people.

1. Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.

2. People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.

3. People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

3 kinds of people.

1. Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.

2. People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.

3. People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.

Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication. So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys. It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage. I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.

I thought it might be. I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts. But do prove me wrong. Show it to me. You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about. Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it. Stop deferring to another poster. Make your own points and back them up.

I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out. That's all that happened there. I didn't mean to blow you off. When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did. Now I see the problem. He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense. You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses. I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way. I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​

The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​

Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity. They're true by definition or by logical condition. They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified. The problem of origin is philosophical. In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence. But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​

Subjectivity, of course, is antonymic to objectivity, and the key to understanding, not only what the difference between the two is, but understanding what the ultimate essence of each is, is to understand the Subject-Object dichotomy.

But you're wasting your time with PratchettFan. From the jump, I knew exactly what this fool was thinking: objective evidence = physical substance only, and the existence of the cosmos, especially the existence of its rational constituents and the implications of their pertinent apprehensions, isn't evidence of God's existence, because God isn't physical, which, of course, does not logically follow.

He's even deceived himself into believing that the essence of objectivity is a definition one might find in a dictionary proffering only the most rudimentary understanding of the adjectival form of the concept object. His problem isn't a lack of philosophical sophistication. His problem is a lack of commonsense. He's a stone-cold idiot. But mostly, his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door. In the meantime, he damn well does recognize the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin, and the absolute, universally apparent laws of logic. He also knows damn well or did know, before God gave his mind over to reprobation, that the cosmos is objective evidence of God's existence. But of course the absolute objects of axiomatic truths apprehended by the rational subjects of existence are by their very nature objective evidence of God's existence too.

By the way, a serious contemplation of the Subject-Object dichotomy reveals profound insights into why God must be, and if you be still and listen, if you pay real close attention, embrace the almost visceral, epiphanic implications, you might even hear the recording of God's voice imprinted on your mind. Boo!

What do you think God is, exactly?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

That argument fails because it's based on a premise that can't be supported by substantive evidence. It in fact begs the question with a presupposition that itself is simply an argument.

 

[sealybobo]

3 kinds of people.

1. Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.

2. People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.

3. People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.

Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.

Huh? Proof that there are people who say there is not god? I don't need proof to know people like that exist. I'm one of them dummy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

3 kinds of people.

1. Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.

2. People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.

3. People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.

Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.

What's wrong with people having decided there is no God?

Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?

 

[Justin Davis]

I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics. The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity. It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.

Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.

Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?

Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.

The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.

Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;

Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery

I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar. I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God. As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.

Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".

That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.

You just wanted to ridicule, and you did lie by imply that I said and thought things that I did not say or think. And you're lying again. God = vacuum fluctuations. The only one who thought or said anything like that is you and the standard Big Bang is not produced by fluctuations, the singularity is. I'm aware of the recycling universe model. I mentioned the old idea of a static universe and asked you about the Big Bang because you seemed to be implying that the oscillating model which means no end in time accounts for the beginning of time.

You aren't making any sense at all.

I suggest that you ask someone to explain what I actually posted before you continue to fling out more baseless allegations.

Said the pot to the kettle. The real confusion was partially my fault but it had nothing to do with your lies about God = vacuum fluctuations or the Big Bang created mass and energy. I'd always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for a beginning of endless time by way of the quantum vacuum, but it doesn't. You implied the model does account for the beginning of the cycle.

 

[PratchettFan]

3 kinds of people.

1. Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.

2. People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.

3. People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.

Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.

What's wrong with people having decided there is no God?

Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?

Absolutely nothing wrong. They are treated differently because human beings are group identified. Those seen outside the group are always looked upon with suspicion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?

Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.

The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.

Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;

Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery

I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar. I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God. As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.

Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".

That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.

You just wanted to ridicule, and you did lie by imply that I said and thought things that I did not say or think. And you're lying again. God = vacuum fluctuations. The only one who thought or said anything like that is you and the standard Big Bang is not produced by fluctuations, the singularity is. I'm aware of the recycling universe model. I mentioned the old idea of a static universe and asked you about the Big Bang because you seemed to be implying that the oscillating model which means no end in time accounts for the beginning of time.

You aren't making any sense at all.

I suggest that you ask someone to explain what I actually posted before you continue to fling out more baseless allegations.

Said the pot to the kettle. The real confusion was partially my fault but it had nothing to do with your lies about God = vacuum fluctuations or the Big Bang created mass and energy. I'd always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for a beginning of endless time by way of the quantum vacuum, but it doesn't. You implied the model does account for the beginning of the cycle.

I'd always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for a beginning of endless time by way of the quantum vacuum, but it doesn't. You implied the model does account for the beginning of the cycle.

The onus is on YOU to prove that implication as opposed to it just being your own misconstruing of what I actually posted. And if you can't prove it then you owe me an apology for calling me a "liar".

Ball is in your court with your credibility on the line.

 

[NYcarbineer]

3 kinds of people.

1. Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.

2. People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.

3. People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.

Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.

What's wrong with people having decided there is no God?

Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?

Absolutely nothing wrong. They are treated differently because human beings are group identified. Those seen outside the group are always looked upon with suspicion.

Well, actually they are treated differently because no one has a vested interest in there actually being a Big Foot.