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

[sealybobo]

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.

Atheists understand eye witness testimony is very unreliable.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I know tons of fools who tell me their stories where they saw an angel or ghost. Or my Catholic friend says he witnessed an exorcist.

Or I watch those religious shows on tv where they heal people. I saw it with my own eyes too. I saw a bunch of fools acting foolish is all I saw.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue is all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?

If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?

(And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of object is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So, everyone that says they know for sure is lying? I think that actually proves my point, you are defining their beliefs for them on the basis that your personal beliefs do not allow people to believe something you don't like.

Given that I enjoy rubbing the noses of close minded bigots in the truth they refuse to admit, I will refer you to this pool where 41% of the respondants said they were number 7 on Dawkins scale.

Richard Dawkins Belief Scale - Poll-

In case you are as bad at math as you are at admitting your are wrong, that means you just called over 500 people liars.

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.

Can you explain to me, in detail, why the fuck you think your actions control other people?

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.

I am not the one denying reality, you are. If that makes me a gullible fool, I will wear the label proudly.

By the way, while i am rubbing your closed mind in reality, here is a guy that explains why he is 1005 sure there is no god.

ExChristian.Net - Articles How can you be sure there is no God

I guess that means I found another liar.

Or, just a thought, you are flat out wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


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.

Well if you're going to be girl about it, he asked for a sound/valid syllogistic ARGUMENT. Rawlings syllogism was not a valid argument.

Happy now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know tons of fools who tell me their stories where they saw an angel or ghost. Or my Catholic friend says he witnessed an exorcist.

Or I watch those religious shows on tv where they heal people. I saw it with my own eyes too. I saw a bunch of fools acting foolish is all I saw.

I am sure you think you have a point.

 

[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.

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.

It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.

There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well if you're going to be girl about it, he asked for a sound/valid syllogistic ARGUMENT. Rawlings syllogism was not a valid argument.

Happy now.

It actually was, because, using syllogism, I can prove you are a cup and have an actual valid argument.

Only cups post on the internet.
NYcarbineer posts on the internet.
Therefore, NYcarbineer is a cup.

In other words, to prove his argument is invalid you have to use the rules of logic to show the conclusion is not supported by the premises. Until you do that, you have not proved his argument is invalid. Simply proving that a premise is false does not make the argument invalid even though the conclusion is false.

If you don't believe me take a class in logic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.

There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.

According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.

 

[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.

Atheists understand eye witness testimony is very unreliable.

So do non Atheists. Both as a working reporter and at a later time in a business in which I took hundreds of recorded statements of eye witness testimonies, I know full well that a dozen people witnessing the same event can see a dozen different versions of what happened. But at the same time, eye witness testimony is sometimes all the evidence we have. It is admissible in court and frequently holds up against trained professionals who try their damndest to discredit it. Were it not, a huge percentage of criminals would never be apprehended or charged, never be tried in a court of law, would never be convicted, would never be held accountable for the most terrible of crimes.

 

[Foxfyre]

It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.

There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.

According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.

Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible. His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex. It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class. And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.

 

[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.

It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.

There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.

Did you just beg the question? You obviously did. In fact, you're assertion is stated as if it were an objectively irrefutable absolute akin to the logical law of identity. The law of identity (A = A) is an absolute of human apprehension. Your claim is as bold as my valentine boxers. It's nature is both rational and empirical. It should be very easy to substantiate. Substantiate it.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

So, everyone that says they know for sure is lying? I think that actually proves my point, you are defining their beliefs for them on the basis that your personal beliefs do not allow people to believe something you don't like.

Given that I enjoy rubbing the noses of close minded bigots in the truth they refuse to admit, I will refer you to this pool where 41% of the respondants said they were number 7 on Dawkins scale.

Richard Dawkins Belief Scale - Poll-

In case you are as bad at math as you are at admitting your are wrong, that means you just called over 500 people liars.

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.

Can you explain to me, in detail, why the fuck you think your actions control other people?

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.

I am not the one denying reality, you are. If that makes me a gullible fool, I will wear the label proudly.

By the way, while i am rubbing your closed mind in reality, here is a guy that explains why he is 1005 sure there is no god.

ExChristian.Net - Articles How can you be sure there is no God

I guess that means I found another liar.

Or, just a thought, you are flat out wrong.

Ok, I get it. Either you are just trying to be a stubborn prick or you are an ignorant fuck. Bye.

 

[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!

What do you think God is, exactly?

He's that eternally self-subsistent, uncaused Cause of the existence of all other things, the very same idea that exists in your mind every time you contemplate the problem of origin or deny there be any actual substance attached to it.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Atheists understand eye witness testimony is very unreliable.

So do non Atheists. Both as a working reporter and at a later time in a business in which I took hundreds of recorded statements of eye witness testimonies, I know full well that a dozen people witnessing the same event can see a dozen different versions of what happened. But at the same time, eye witness testimony is sometimes all the evidence we have. It is admissible in court and frequently holds up against trained professionals who try their damndest to discredit it. Were it not, a huge percentage of criminals would never be apprehended or charged, never be tried in a court of law, would never be convicted, would never be held accountable for the most terrible of crimes.

When it comes to crimes, I think if more than one person saw the defendant commit the crime that should be sufficient but when it comes to eye witness' seeing a miracle, I doubt them 100% of the time.

Oops, I can't say 100% if I was not there. I doubt them 99.999%. Either they were seeing things, are lying or they were tricked.

I saw David Blane do some amazing shit. I can't explain how he did those things. If he told me it was god, I wouldn't believe him.

And I saw a guy on tv talking about exactly what you just said about eye witness testimony. We accept it in court even though it can be very unreliable. Was this the man you saw on the day in question? Yes. Really? What if it were someone who looked similar? It has happened before. You know how to us whites all blacks look alike? LOL.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

So, everyone that says they know for sure is lying? I think that actually proves my point, you are defining their beliefs for them on the basis that your personal beliefs do not allow people to believe something you don't like.

Given that I enjoy rubbing the noses of close minded bigots in the truth they refuse to admit, I will refer you to this pool where 41% of the respondants said they were number 7 on Dawkins scale.

Richard Dawkins Belief Scale - Poll-

In case you are as bad at math as you are at admitting your are wrong, that means you just called over 500 people liars.

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.

Can you explain to me, in detail, why the fuck you think your actions control other people?

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.

I am not the one denying reality, you are. If that makes me a gullible fool, I will wear the label proudly.

By the way, while i am rubbing your closed mind in reality, here is a guy that explains why he is 1005 sure there is no god.

ExChristian.Net - Articles How can you be sure there is no God

I guess that means I found another liar.

Or, just a thought, you are flat out wrong.

Well they are wrong. They can't be 100% sure if they are not gods themselves. They need to be educated.

I'm 100% sure, based on the evidence I have, that the Jesus god is fake. Maybe that's what they mean? There could be some creator that created the universe. Who knows? But the god that came and talked to Adam and Moses and Noah? I'm 100% sure those are just made up stories/lies.

But even that I can't say 100% sure because maybe before I was born people could perform miracles, virgins could give birth, people could live 350 years old. I'd be willing to be 1 million though that none of this is true. All allegories. Get it?

So I'm 100% sure your god is fake, but whether or not some thing created the universe we live in? It's possible. But no one on this planet would know for sure because this thing never visited us.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Your question regarding "the universally apparent idea for God", is malformed. There simply is no such idea. Let's remember that your gods are merely reinventions of earlier conceptions of gods all of which are now discarded as quaint inventions borne of fear and superstition.

Let's review for a moment the underlying principles of religion, specifically the Christian religion. It is fearful of true knowledge-- it has made it man's primary sin and it has lauded faith over critical thinking. Believe because if you don't, you are condemned.

Therein lies the problem. Where your gods or any of the other gods could maintain an ongoing communication with us, they select not to, thereby making it impossible to "choose" any gods as the "correct god(s)." One could argue that in the Old Testament -- and somewhat less frequently in the New -- (the god's that Christianity stole from Judaism) presence in man's domain was far more evident. Conveniently, man was also far more superstitious and less scientifically knowledgeable at the same time. Do we have a chicken and the egg dynamic here? Is it, "as we got more technological, the gods 'changed his mind' about their level of involvement"? Or, is it "gods fades into obscurity as man's technology grants him greater knowledge of his environment"? (I opt for the latter of course).

In terms of the Christian eschatology myth, the god creates Man, the result of everything is already set in place. God knows Man must fail, as he has created Satan already to allow Man to fail, and in fact decides to give Satan-- whom God knows is evil prideful rebellion incarnate-- to have power of such magnitude that it will actually become a war of good versus evil in the "last days" -- when in fact God should be able to eradicate Satan and evil and hell and damnation --with a metaphorical blink of an eye. He just doesn't do it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.

There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.

According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.

Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible. His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex. It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class. And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.

Fox, what are you talking about? The topic is the classical arguments for God's existence! The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real. They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent. They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them. Circle. Square. Triangle. The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion. A = A. A = not-A. The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less). Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.

Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective. Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions. The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride. Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.

Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what is staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.

There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.

According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.

Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible. His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex. It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class. And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.

Fox, what are you talking about? The topic is the classical arguments for God's existence! The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real. They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent. They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them. Circle. Square. Triangle. The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion. A = A. A = not-A. The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less). Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.

Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective. Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions. The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride. Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.

Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what is staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that

jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?

 

[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?

He's that eternally self-subsistent, uncaused Cause of the existence of all other things, the very same idea that exists in your mind every time you contemplate the problem of origin or deny there be any actual substance attached to it.

And that's supposed to mean something to normal people? So God is nothing more than an idea that exists in the mind?

lol, well if that's what this is down to I guess you win. God is a thought. People have thoughts...therefore people have gods.