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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Actually, since the OP asked for a valid syllogistic argument, your argument is the one that fails because it relies on things outside of syllogism.

 

[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.

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

If you were in a group of dedicated Big Foot believers and announced you didn't believe, you would be treated the same way. Perhaps more so since those people would probably have a more tightly knitted group. Most people don't believe in Big Foot, so being a Big Foot disbeliever in that group just makes you part of the group. You could also try going into a meeting of the local Tea Party and suggesting they put their efforts behind socialized medicine. But please, video it for me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Ask sealy, he is the one that insist they do not exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Actually, since the OP asked for a valid syllogistic argument, your argument is the one that fails because it relies on things outside of syllogism.

He asked for a valid syllogism, not an invalid one. I showed why Rawlings' syllogism was invalid.

 

[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.

If you were in a group of dedicated Big Foot believers and announced you didn't believe, you would be treated the same way. Perhaps more so since those people would probably have a more tightly knitted group. Most people don't believe in Big Foot, so being a Big Foot disbeliever in that group just makes you part of the group. You could also try going into a meeting of the local Tea Party and suggesting they put their efforts behind socialized medicine. But please, video it for me.

Big Foot is just a convenient example.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.

 

[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.​

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.

But I didn’t write those definitions. You’re not making any sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[


He asked for a valid syllogism, not an invalid one. I showed why Rawlings' syllogism was invalid.

No, you showed why you think it is false, not why it is invalid. I suggest you look up the rules of logic I poster earlier in this thread, you might learn something.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

If you were in a group of dedicated Big Foot believers and announced you didn't believe, you would be treated the same way. Perhaps more so since those people would probably have a more tightly knitted group. Most people don't believe in Big Foot, so being a Big Foot disbeliever in that group just makes you part of the group. You could also try going into a meeting of the local Tea Party and suggesting they put their efforts behind socialized medicine. But please, video it for me.

Big Foot is just a convenient example.

It was. It really helped demonstrate my point.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.

The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.

The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.

The universe exists, but it isn't the empirical evidence for the substance of an idea in your mind? You're hilarious. Are you trying to convince me of this horseradish or yourself? So are you saying that your mind, the connection, doesn't exist? Now that I could almost buy given the mindless nature of your blather, except for the fact that I'm reading your mind, in more ways than one, on this forum.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.

The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.

The universe exists, but it isn't the empirical evidence for the substance of an idea in your mind? You're hilarious. Are you trying to convince me of this horseradish or yourself? So are you saying that your mind, the connection, doesn't exist? Now that I could almost buy given the mindless nature of your blather, except for the fact that I'm reading your mind, in more ways than one, on this forum.

Your failure to respond to post #439 has seriously harmed your credibility.

Your failure to comprehend the FACT that the existence of the Universe is NOT evidence for your mythical God further harms your credibility.

That your latest response was nothing more than a personal attack pushes your credibility close to zero.

Better start upping your game if you want to be taken seriously around here.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.

The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.

While it is true that the existence of the universe is not proof that there is a being that some call God, it is not also true that there is no empirical evidence that such God exists. Are you me? Do you know what I have experienced up close and personal about anything? If you witness or experience a thing, for you that is evidence. You may not be able to prove it to a single other soul, but for you, it is evidence. If you are convincing or persuasive or believable enough, your experience may also be accepted as evidence by others whether or not they also have had the experience. And for those who have had the experience, testimony of your experience can also be confirmation/validation of the experience of others who also had the same experience.

You cannot say conclusively that there is no empirical evidence that God exists when you cannot falsify my account or that of many others who testify to such empirical experience. The desire to disbelieve in something is not sufficient to discredit or dismiss out of hand those witnesses.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.

The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.

While it is true that the existence of the universe is not proof that there is a being that some call God, it is not also true that there is no empirical evidence that such God exists. Are you me? Do you know what I have experienced up close and personal about anything? If you witness or experience a thing, for you that is evidence. You may not be able to prove it to a single other soul, but for you, it is evidence. If you are convincing or persuasive or believable enough, your experience may also be accepted as evidence by others whether or not they also have had the experience. And for those who have had the experience, testimony of your experience can also be confirmation/validation of the experience of others who also had the same experience.

You cannot say conclusively that there is no empirical evidence that God exists when you cannot falsify my account or that of many others who testify to such empirical experience. The desire to disbelieve in something is not sufficient to discredit or dismiss out of hand those witnesses.

There is no "desire to disbelieve", Foxy.

There is no intent to "falsify your account" either.

Your personal experiences (and others who share those experiences) are what satisfy you and them as to your own convictions.

But empirical evidence requires independent validation. Therefore someone who doesn't share your beliefs should be able to experience what you claim and verify that they were in contact with your God. That is how empirical evidence works. If it cannot be independently validated then it is not empirical evidence.

So yes, I can say conclusively that your personal experiences are not empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that what you experience is not valid as far as you are concerned. You are entitled to your beliefs and I will die for your right to uphold those beliefs. But we are talking about empirical is defined and your beliefs and experiences do not fit the definition of empirical evidence.

Peace
DT

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[


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.

Yep. The major premise is a presupposition. So? That doesn't make it untrue or invalid, and your claim that it "can't be supported by substantive evidence" is patently false on the very face of it, while the major premise is not manifestly false.

The syllogism is irrefutably sound, and the conclusion is irrefutably true . . . if the major premise is true.

So how does it beg the question? And assuming that's true, what is the question it's begging? Be precise.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.

The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.

While it is true that the existence of the universe is not proof that there is a being that some call God, it is not also true that there is no empirical evidence that such God exists. Are you me? Do you know what I have experienced up close and personal about anything? If you witness or experience a thing, for you that is evidence. You may not be able to prove it to a single other soul, but for you, it is evidence. If you are convincing or persuasive or believable enough, your experience may also be accepted as evidence by others whether or not they also have had the experience. And for those who have had the experience, testimony of your experience can also be confirmation/validation of the experience of others who also had the same experience.

You cannot say conclusively that there is no empirical evidence that God exists when you cannot falsify my account or that of many others who testify to such empirical experience. The desire to disbelieve in something is not sufficient to discredit or dismiss out of hand those witnesses.

There is no "desire to disbelieve", Foxy.

There is no intent to "falsify your account" either.

Your personal experiences (and others who share those experiences) are what satisfy you and them as to your own convictions.

But empirical evidence requires independent validation. Therefore someone who doesn't share your beliefs should be able to experience what you claim and verify that they were in contact with your God. That is how empirical evidence works. If it cannot be independently validated then it is not empirical evidence.

So yes, I can say conclusively that your personal experiences are not empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that what you experience is not valid as far as you are concerned. You are entitled to your beliefs and I will die for your right to uphold those beliefs. But we are talking about empirical is defined and your beliefs and experiences do not fit the definition of empirical evidence. You will note that your definition is generally the third one on the list.

Peace
DT

Well you may say it emphatically but according to every dictionary and encyclopedia definition I've ever read, you can't say it conclusively unless you are speaking of scientific evidence which I was not.

You will notice that your definition is generally third on the list while mine is first and/or second.

From Dictionary.com:
Empirical Evidence
adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

From Merriam Webster:
1 originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 of or relating to empiricism

From Definitions & Translations:
Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect. In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Bullshit.

Pathetic.

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.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Long winded arguments? As opposed to what? Your obtuse slogan think? You came into this OP not knowing what the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin are or what the ultimate essence of the classical arguments for God's existence are, and you still don't know . . . because you have spent your entire time on this thread talking about irrelevancies. You've written more posts on this thread than I have. I'm actually addressing the topic of the OP. What are you doing?

The thrust of the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin and the ultimate essence of the classical arguments for God's existence are not what you just claimed at all! You came into this OP with false, preconceived ideas about the matter, and you're still stuck with the very same false, preconceived ideas because you refuse to open your mind and think.

Neither your nor my personal beliefs about the existence or nonexistence of God are relevant to the fact of the objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the issue.

Get the wax out of your ears!

 

[sealybobo]

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.

No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.

You don't seem to want to understand. No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.

How do I know? I say it all the time. THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD! But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.

Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth. That makes you a gullible fool.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no "desire to disbelieve", Foxy.

There is no intent to "falsify your account" either.

Your personal experiences (and others who share those experiences) are what satisfy you and them as to your own convictions.

But empirical evidence requires independent validation. Therefore someone who doesn't share your beliefs should be able to experience what you claim and verify that they were in contact with your God. That is how empirical evidence works. If it cannot be independently validated then it is not empirical evidence.

So yes, I can say conclusively that your personal experiences are not empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that what you experience is not valid as far as you are concerned. You are entitled to your beliefs and I will die for your right to uphold those beliefs. But we are talking about empirical is defined and your beliefs and experiences do not fit the definition of empirical evidence.

Peace
DT

Tell me something, why do you insist on using words you do not understand?

originating in or based on observation or experience

Empirical - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

In other words, personal experience is actualy empirical evidence.