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

[Justin Davis]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

It is universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, a priori axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4, are not universally held to hold or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.

See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is #2, when it's #1 of the following:

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, GT.

I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, GT.

How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?

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

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. What is arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like GT the Intellectual Coward, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.

No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: Why is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?

Answer: Yes. We do.

Why is the assertion that God does exist an axiom in our minds?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/


Atheism, thy name is Intellectual Cowardice.

TAG, promoted by those with tin foil hats.

He's like stretch Armstrong.

I'm thinking that your posts are like the stretched out underwear of odor strong.

 

[G.T.]

Don't fire your comedy coach.

He's really great, justin.

Promise!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1! The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

(Transcendental Argument: see Posts #3944, #3945 and #3941.)


The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition!

I've explained this obvious fact to GT a number of times as I proved it to be an obvious fact every which way and Sunday.

I now know that GT understands the nature of this fact and its significance, yet he continues to attempt to conceal this truth from others.

How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?

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

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that knowledge (or anything else) can exist if God (the Creator) doesn't exist.

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible, axiomatic fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. What is arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like GT the Intellectual Coward, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves. And apparently Amrchaos is an intellectual coward too, only his intellectual cowardice is compounded by the foolishness of one who is a solipsist necessarily appealing to empirical materiality in a failed inductive argument. Hence, he thinks to mock the TAG, but only ends up mocking himself!

Looky here. The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!

No one but a fool or a liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: Why is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?

Answer: Yes. We do.

Why is the assertion that God does exist an axiom in our minds?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.

 

[G.T.]

Tag begs the question and is viciously circular.

Concise.

True.

Clean English.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.

It is universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, a priori axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4, are not universally held to hold or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.

See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is #2, when it's #1 of the following:

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, GT.

I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, GT.

How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?

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

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. What is arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like GT the Intellectual Coward, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.

No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: Why is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?

Answer: Yes. We do.

Why is the assertion that God does exist an axiom in our minds?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/


Atheism, thy name is Intellectual Cowardice.

TAG, promoted by those with tin foil hats.

He's like stretch Armstrong.

I'm thinking that your posts are like the stretched out underwear of odor strong.

You're morphing into Eddie Murphy again. Boss will be furious.

 

[Boss]

More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity

Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as properly executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.

The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include all of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.

In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, pretend they don't exist:

1. Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
2. Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
3. God created human beings.
4. Human beings have logic.
5. Hence, God created logic.

That syllogism does not jump from an A to a non sequiturial B, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap: God created everything; hence, God created logic. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?

Do you even know what the fuck you're saying dude? This is just a load of convoluted mumbo jumbo that seems to be for the express purpose of making yourself look intellectual. I didn't say "hence" anything, that's YOU loading up my argument with presumptive terminology because that's how you think you can win this argument.

Logic serves no function except to humans trying to rationalize thought. If God created humans and the human mind, then God created logic as well, because that is the only place logic means anything or has any functional purpose in the universe. The same applies to all this claptrap you are spewing about "laws of identity" and "absolute objectivity" ...those are human concepts developed by the human mind in order to help understand a material and physical universe and reality... which was ALL created by God!

You've NOT contradicted that, you CAN'T contradict that, and if you DO contradict it, it's a false contradiction based on a flawed premise. The more you talk, the more you appear to be a little man with a little mind and an inferiority complex. I totally get why you've attacked me now. But you attacked the wrong dog bud, this dog bites back.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity

Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as properly executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.

The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include all of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.

In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, pretend they don't exist:

1. Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
2. Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
3. God created human beings.
4. Human beings have logic.
5. Hence, God created logic.

That syllogism does not jump from an A to a non sequiturial B, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap: God created everything; hence, God created logic. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?

Do you even know what the fuck you're saying dude? This is just a load of convoluted mumbo jumbo that seems to be for the express purpose of making yourself look intellectual. I didn't say "hence" anything, that's YOU loading up my argument with presumptive terminology because that's how you think you can win this argument.

Logic serves no function except to humans trying to rationalize thought. If God created humans and the human mind, then God created logic as well, because that is the only place logic means anything or has any functional purpose in the universe. The same applies to all this claptrap you are spewing about "laws of identity" and "absolute objectivity" ...those are human concepts developed by the human mind in order to help understand a material and physical universe and reality... which was ALL created by God!

You've NOT contradicted that, you CAN'T contradict that, and if you DO contradict it, it's a false contradiction based on a flawed premise. The more you talk, the more you appear to be a little man with a little mind and an inferiority complex. I totally get why you've attacked me now. But you attacked the wrong dog bud, this dog bites back.

Of course I do, and I'm talking to a man of bluster and foolish pride.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Tag begs the question and is viciously circular.

Concise.

True.

Clean English.

Which shows once again that atheists like you do not care about the objective facts of human cognition, the incontrovertible, a priori axioms of logic at all, as you pretend that theists argue from fallacy. You merely rally around the flag of ignorance and self-deceit, utter phonies and liars and hypocrites and intellectual cowards, who instead of conceding that you must necessarily appeal to the paradoxically contradictory notions of irrationalism, the self-negating assertions of relativism, and to the purely inductively derived, empirical foundation of a materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism that is scientifically unverifiable . . . you resort to the mockery of foolish pride.

You rally around one another, slap each other on the back, an orgasmic pile of the pure emotionalism of group-think. Behold: the atheist tribe of the herd-mentality that doesn't even have the integrity to point out to one of their own how insanely stupid it is for a solipsist to assert what would always necessarily have to be an inductive argument, an appeal to experiential materiality against the Transcendental Argument (TAG).

The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!

 

[G.T.]

Human cognition doesn't lead to what you foolishly assert that it does.

You make a leap of faith, not logic. You're a lame.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Amrchaos Mocks Himself. Sweet!


Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm.

A solipsist mocking the Transcendental Argument?!

What a fool you are you! Those who do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously? Well, they would in fact be same atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.

They are in fact the hypocrites like you who know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above that, once again, do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult. In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man out of sheer, foolish pride.

Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb. You're a snot-nosed punk. You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!

You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself:

Amrchaos the Confused: "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or a priori in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."


Rawlings: "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"


Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: "Because these rational, a priori axioms of human cognition inside our minds, which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond? Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"


Rawlings: "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​

Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.

 

[Hollie]

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) is a disaster of viciously circular argumentation.

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Human cognition doesn't lead to what you foolishly assert that it does.

You make a leap of faith, not logic. You're a lame.

So you think to use logic to make what you think to be a logical argument, but don't like logic when it mocks you? Sweet!

 

[G.T.]

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) is a disaster of viciously circular argumentation.

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster!

Yepp.

And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......

That's weird



Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.


That fish doesn't bite.


Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!


Dopes.

 

[G.T.]

Human cognition doesn't lead to what you foolishly assert that it does.

You make a leap of faith, not logic. You're a lame.

So you think to use logic to make what you think to be a logical argument, but don't logic when it mocks you? Sweet!

Again in English?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) is a disaster of viciously circular argumentation.

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster!

Yepp.

And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......

That's weird



Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.


That fish doesn't bite.


Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!


Dopes.

Sweet!

 

[Justin Davis]

The Transcendental Argument (TAG) is a disaster of viciously circular argumentation.

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster!

Yepp.

And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......

That's weird



Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.


That fish doesn't bite.


Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!


Dopes.

Sweet!

I think "sweet" should be the new meme for this thread.

 

[Justin Davis]

Yepp.

And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......

That's weird



Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.


That fish doesn't bite.


Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!


Dopes.

Yeah. No chance it's a creation because atheist fanatics say so. Sweet!

 

[G.T.]

The preceding Justin rawlings Davis posts are awarded gt's presupper in 3d seal of approval.

Say them with me.

Dip.

Duck.


Dodge.

 

[G.T.]

Yepp.

And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......

That's weird



Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.


That fish doesn't bite.


Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!


Dopes.

Yeah. No chance it's a creation because atheist fanatics say so. Sweet!

Well, no sweety.

Its neither proven a creation or not a creation.

Difference being knowing that you cannot assert one or the other as an absolute, charlatan.

 

[Justin Davis]

You're a lame.

You're sweet.