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

[Inevitable]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

What a total phony. I asked you if you existed, punk. You said that you know you existed, punk. I asked how you came to exist, punk. "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk? You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk. You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk. Those are the options, punk.

dude, stop drooling. jesus christ

He has lost his mind hasn't he?

Justin, chill, it's just an opinion.

 

[Inevitable]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.

You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.

 

[BreezeWood]

It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.

we can't know truth ...

the Triumph of Good over Evil or of Evil over Good, the parable of Noah is the means for knowing Truth necessary for Remittance to first becoming a Spiritual being and Judged by that outcome necessary for the goal of Admittance to the Everlasting.


but we're not God ... it is silly to enslave yourself to such a silly concept -

God is the gatekeeper against Evil - anything else is achievable.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Science doesn't prove things, logic does.

False. Logic doesn't prove anything.

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.

Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value

Come on. We've already defined what logic we're talking about. We're talking about the three formal organic laws of thought, the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle and the absolute standard of objectivity. It's been thoroughly defined. GT keeps trying to impose the fallacies of informal logic that only apply to secondary propositions, not to the axioms of formal logic. He's an idiot. He knows he cannot refute the axioms of formal logic. He's phony. Boss is trying to argue that an imaginary absurdity, which is a secondary proposition that is a logical fallacy refutes formal axiom. They are phonies. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof phonies everywhere.

I've refuted that they're even axioms to begin with, and I've done so without any refutation whatsoever.

Axiom: an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

Hold the phone, there's no controversy over the existence of god!!?!?!?!!?

Up is down, retard.

Why are you talking to Justin about this when you know that I've already negated this many times? You're just one of the redundant broken records of duh around here who never acknowledges the any objective standards of discourse.

Straw man!

The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as an axiom that is universally accepted without controversy. So your wrong from the jump! However, legitimate objections are asserted from definitive premises in keeping with the formal standards of academia and the conventional standards of justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K). Your standards are illegitimate and intellectually dishonest. The fallacies of informal logic (FIL) apply to secondary propositions when they are asserted as established JTB/K, propositions that are not necessarily rationally or empirically demonstrable. The FIL do not apply to the primary axioms of formal logic, i.e., the incontrovertibly universal facts of human cognition. The latter may, however, be legitimately doubted on the basis of rationally or scientifically pragmatic skepticism and thereby tested in order to determine whether a contradiction can be deduced from them or in order to determine if any given postulate/theorem subsequently predicated on them can be negated/falsified by direct evidence.

Seriously? You used a series of question marks and exclamation points to underscore the historical controversy over God's existence on a thread about that very thing?

Let me find an appropriate smiley for that banality: . Actually, there are several appropriate smilies for that bilge.


The Transcendental Argument (TAG) does not assert that there is no controversy over the question of God's existence.

See "The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!" http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.

You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.

Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?

 

[Inevitable]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.

You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.

Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?

No, are you an atheist?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.

You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.

Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?

No, are you an atheist?

No. I know better, on both counts.

 

[Inevitable]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.

You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.

Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?

No, are you an atheist?

No. I know better, on both counts.

Okay, because I can explain this both ways.

It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.

You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.

So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.

I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

What a total phony. I asked you if you existed, punk. You said that you know you existed, punk. I asked how you came to exist, punk. "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk? You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk. You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk. Those are the options, punk.

Hey, ease up there friend. No need to stop being a lady about it.

My existence really doesn't prove the existence of God.

Son, logic proves or disproves things regarding empirical and transcendental propositions for justified true belief/knowledge. Science verifies or falsifies things.

Your existence and the existence of the universe are in fact the evidence for God's existence.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/

 

[Justin Davis]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.

You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.

Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?

He got it from a Cracker Jack box.

 

[Inevitable]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

What a total phony. I asked you if you existed, punk. You said that you know you existed, punk. I asked how you came to exist, punk. "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk? You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk. You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk. Those are the options, punk.

Hey, ease up there friend. No need to stop being a lady about it.

My existence really doesn't prove the existence of God.

Son, logic proves or disproves things regarding empirical and transcendental propositions for justified true belief/knowledge. Science verifies or falsifies things.

Your existence and the existence of the universe are in fact the evidence for God's existence.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/

So The universe needs a god to create it? Why? Prove it.

 

[Inevitable]

Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun." I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes. Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?

Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.

You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.

Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?

He got it from a Cracker Jack box.

At least I have something other than calling people names. And arrogance to match the most conceited atheist.

 

[emilynghiem]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/

So The universe needs a god to create it? Why? Prove it.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, Inevitable:
I believe it can be either way
the Universe/Creation/all things in existence/Collective truth
can be taken to be self-existent, with no beginning and no end, as the concept of God being infinite and eternal
that's one approach I see people relate to
or Life as we know it
can have a beginning point of Creation
OR
our PERCEPTION and self-awareness of laws and of existence
can have a beginning point

I have seen all these different ways

As long as people can understand and accept where the other person
frames the timeline, we can still align and discuss/agree on points
and principles WITHIN the laws of these systems.

One person can be looking at just Earth
another the Solar System
Another the Milky Way
and another the whole spiel

And we can still agree that
the laws of gravity work a certain way on Earth

Even if we don't agree on Quantum Physics
and if time being relative can be warped through wormholes or whatever,
we can agree that you can use
a combination of gravity and friction to walk across the floor.

We don't have to agree on what created this gravity
to use it and understand the basic concepts

Inevitable I will be so happy when we don't have
to argue about conditions that aren't necessary to agree on,
and we can focus on the practical stuff that can do the most good in the world,
like not arguing "how old the trees are the oranges came from"
or "when did the forces of nature first produce these trees"
to agree that Vitamin C in oranges helps the
body's natural immune system. if we had to agree on
all that other stuff BEFOREHAND we'd never get to the orange juice....

 

[Inevitable]

Thanks, Inevitable:
I believe it can be either way
the Universe/Creation/all things in existence/Collective truth
can be taken to be self-existent, with no beginning and no end, as the concept of God being infinite and eternal
that's one approach I see people relate to
or Life as we know it
can have a beginning point of Creation
OR
our PERCEPTION and self-awareness of laws and of existence
can have a beginning point

I have seen all these different ways

As long as people can understand and accept where the other person
frames the timeline, we can still align and discuss/agree on points
and principles WITHIN the laws of these systems.

One person can be looking at just Earth
another the Solar System
Another the Milky Way
and another the whole spiel

And we can still agree that
the laws of gravity work a certain way on Earth

Even if we don't agree on Quantum Physics
and if time being relative can be warped through wormholes or whatever,
we can agree that you can use
a combination of gravity and friction to walk across the floor.

We don't have to agree on what created this gravity
to use it and understand the basic concepts

Inevitable I will be so happy when we don't have
to argue about conditions that aren't necessary to agree on,
and we can focus on the practical stuff that can do the most good in the world,
like not arguing "how old the trees are the oranges came from"
or "when did the forces of nature first produce these trees"
to agree that Vitamin C in oranges helps the
body's natural immune system. if we had to agree on
all that other stuff BEFOREHAND we'd never get to the orange juice....

All I am really trying to do is to get people to think. I am afraid that in current company I feel much like Sisyphus.

 

[G.T.]

So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.

How many does that make, now?

I lost track around ten.

 

[Inevitable]

So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.

How many does that make, now?

I lost track around ten.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates

I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

What a total phony. I asked you if you existed, punk. You said that you know you existed, punk. I asked how you came to exist, punk. "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk? You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk. You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk. Those are the options, punk.

Hey, ease up there friend. No need to stop being a lady about it.

My existence really doesn't prove the existence of God.

Son, logic proves or disproves things regarding empirical and transcendental propositions for justified true belief/knowledge. Science verifies or falsifies things.

Your existence and the existence of the universe are in fact the evidence for God's existence.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/

So The universe needs a god to create it? Why? Prove it.

I see that you gave that information all the thought that you give to the chore of brushing your teeth. God is speaking to you, Son, right now in your mind, but you're not listening . . . even after I gave you all the clues in The Seven Things that God has revealed to mankind from the heavens. These things are in your mind and in the universe in which you live. He's telling you that I AM! You didn't hear His voice because you're not listening to Him, but to the noise of popular culture. Think very carefully about The Seven Things and pay particular attention to #6. Get serious. The evidence and the proofs for God existence are inside your mind and all around you.

 

[BreezeWood]

So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.

How many does that make, now?

I lost track around ten.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates
.

I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.

I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.

.

they lose because they have no practical application.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap

Boss is also arguing that

all we HAVE is our human logic.

Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,

we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC

so whatever logic God created for us on our level

is determining whatever we look at. it is always

limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.

Now I want to isolate this thought.

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Boss' failure to properly execute the distinction delineated by the second law of thought (the law of contradiction) is the essence of Boss' default to the irrationalism of relativism.

On the grounds of the absolute standard for objectivity, the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the logically highest conceivable standard for divine attribution without begging the question:

[indent[God's creative powers are infinitely unlimited, bound by nothing but His nature of absolute perfection. Our creative powers are limited to contriving humanly conceivable things out of preexistent materials. God's knowledge/understanding is infinitely unlimited. Our knowledge is finite as our minds our finite. God is at most immanently and transcendently everywhere, contingent on nothing else but His very own Being. We can only be in one place at a time as far as we know or can tell.

The laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity) ≠ Informational Knowledge.

Hence, we have the distinction between (1) operational knowledge (the laws of thought) and (2) informational knowledge (the detailed facts/actualities of existence).[/indent]


We can imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We can imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain how God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.

In other words:

1. How could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity: for any given A: A = A? God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?

2. How could God not hold or be bound by the law of contradiction: for any two or more propositions NOT(A = NOT-A)? God holds that two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions are true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?

3. How could God not hold or be bound by the law of the excluded middle: for all A: A OR ~A? God does not hold that either the positive or the negative form of any given proposition of a single predicate is true, but that both the positive and the negative form would be true at the time? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?​

Hence, Boss' refusal to believe that our logic is not God's uncreated logic divinely bestowed on us is an absurdity and/or an inherent contradiction of self-negation that positively proves the opposite is logically true.

That is the inescapably reality of human cognition. For any given A: A = A. It is what it is. If this axiom of human cognition is not ultimately or transcendentally true, nothing is sure. Nothing we assert about anything is necessarily true. Yet Boss claims, not only to believe all of kinds things, but to know all kinds of things based on A: A ≠ A!

Boss is outside his mind. God is not a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos. It is Boss, not God, who is the relativist. Hence, Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap!

Here's the real irony in all of this: at one point Boss held that the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is logically true insofar as God's existence is concerned, but the TAG is a double proof. It necessarily holds that (1) God exists and that (2) God is the universal Principle of Identity!

According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.

Knock Knock

Anybody home?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.

How many does that make, now?

I lost track around ten.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates

I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.

Is the noise of popular culture stocking your ego? Listen to God instead.