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

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I vote for stubborn prick. After all, only stubborn pricks would insist that something is true when there is irrefutable evidence that it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

David Blane does things you can't explain? Like what, tying his shoe laces?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Your claim was that no one says they are 100% sure there is no god, not that your beliefs trump theirs. That makes you wrong, not them.

By the way, until you can tell me what I believe about god, which you are 100% unable to do because I have never told you what I believe, you cannot claim my god is fake. But I do laugh at your attempt to define my beliefs for me.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

(Okay, this post is different from the one for which I wrote a response, which I was about to post before my computer did an automatic shutdown. The original included quotes from the Physicist Victor Stenger, so here we go. . . .)

There's a reason why Victor Stenger’s guff is the minority opinion among cosmologists and physicists, atheists and theists alike. For all his smarts in his field, his pseudo-theological bloviations are those of an obtuse ninny.

The universe is extremely hostile to life (Victor Stenger).

Non sequitur.

Yes, indeed, it is, and it's especially hostile to any of the conceivable processes of an abiogenetic origin for life. But the universe's arguable hostility toward extant life is not the issue. The issue is that if the respective astronomical arrangements and conditions of the universe, especially those of our solar system, did not persist within a very narrow range of parameters, if, collectively, they were less than one percent off, life wouldn't exist, let alone the indispensable biochemical precursors of life.

Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space (Victor Stenger).

Non sequitur.

Right. Life is rare in the universe precisely because it can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, and the fact that we know of at least one discrete enclave of the universe where life exists doesn't undermine the idea of a divine origin at all, but arguably underscores it. Duh.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended (Victor Stenger).

Oh? So the fact that life can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, the only pertinent and objectively discernible thing that matters, suggests nothing at all about a Sentient origin, especially when one considers the staggeringly complex enterprise that sentient life is and the odds against it even in a universe that permits its existence? Is Stenger arguing for or against God's existence?

On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution (Victor Stenger).

Now Stenger’s making a counter teleological argument that necessarily (and unwittingly) presupposes to know something about what the intent of a transcendent Sentience of origin, Whose existence he denies, would be, based on his purely subjective perspective of things, as he unwittingly superimposes the scientifically unfalsifiable apriority of materialism on the question.


Special treatment:

. . . the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time . . . indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things. . . .

For crying out loud! He's arguing complexity, the very thing atheists claim to be fallacious, albeit, against the notion of divine origin! LOL! Well, hell, which is it?

But more to the point, given that he has allowed that complexity is a valid basis for argumentation after all: why isn't it reasonable to argue that a Sentient origin has orchestrated an awesomely and staggeringly complex display of His majesty precisely because sentient creatures are central in the scheme of things and so that they may surmise His existence? Is Stenger's point that simplicity would indicate an infinitely powerful and ingenious Being of origin? LOL!

. . . we are . . . mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution.

Chance variation and the putative mechanisms of evolutionary theory would be contingent on the cosmos' fixed physical laws and chemical compositions determining the subsequent conditions under which speciation would occur, and none of these things are equivalent to agency, not individually or collectively.

From this we may see that his conclusion is assumed in the premises of his atheistic meanderings, when the only discernibly objective fact of relevance is the rarity of life in the universe due to the very narrow range of parameters within which it can exist.

Stenger's argument is a rash of utterly immaterial, subjective mush.


Hence, as I wrote elseswhere:

. . . Indeed, it took the naysayers of the Twentieth Century several decades to realize what theists were ultimately getting at: the processes leading to the actualization of all these wondrous things are necessarily contingent to or bottomed on a singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions which permitted the cosmos to achieve the ability to contemplate itself in the first place. Sentience. While this is not an absolute logical proof of God's existence, it arguably serves as an evidentially sufficient basis on which to reasonably assert His existence in terms of the cosmos's ultimate purpose.

. . . the current objection developed by those who finally came to grips with the enduring, though, for a season, obscured, transcendent implications of the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, acknowledge today by most cosmologists and physicists, at the very least, for the prerequisite conditions allowing for the existence of the indispensable biochemical precursors of life: namely, the anthropic principle as predicated on the statistical dynamics of a multiverse providing for an arguably credible model of selection bias. ​

People, the above is the only arguably sustainable objection to the teleological argument, though it still has no real impact on the ultimate concern in this universe (see post #106 for the full argument). Stenger's crap is as bad or worse than Dawkins' theologically sophomoric tripe: for example, "Who created God?"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Foxfyre observe!

False. Your silly and evasive therefore is of your own fabrication. And your obnoxious sneering only makes you look all the more stupid and dishonest. For what is the point, junior?

The point is that the idea of God is not a mere figment of human culture, but a propositional axiom of potentiality immediately apprehended when one turns one's mind on the problem of origin, the substance of which cannot be rationally denied outright. The idea of God and/or the conclusion that He is or must be is not based on blind faith and does not violate the rules of logic, something you have stupidly asserted more than once on this forum, in spite of the fact that you have now necessarily conceded that your sneering bullshit is sheer bluster. The idea is in your head for the very same . . . .reason.

Isn't that the whole point of so-called agnostic atheism?

You know, a position the likes of you recognize to be a rationally necessary position. The position of strict atheism is irrational. And once again, what is the objective evidence for atheism? Answer: Zip. It can't be articulated in its own right. It's a negative assertion in the face of existence. What exactly does evidence for atheism mean anyway? Think about that for awhile, junior.

And, finally, what does the nature of this idea ultimately demonstrate? It demonstrates that all you liars know damn well that the existence of the universe is the pertinent evidence for God's existence. WE SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU. Boo!

 

[MaxGrit]

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.)

You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?

They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.

 

[MaxGrit]

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?

He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.

You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.

 

[Indofred]

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

 

[Hollie]

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

Yes. The most convincing argument for the non-existence of gods derives from the sweaty, chest-heaving appeals to magic, fear and superstition which is the entirety of the fundamentalist's argument.

 

[Hollie]

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.)

You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?

They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.

There is no logical argument available to reach a conclusion that "magic" and supernaturalism has a place in explaining existence.

 

[G.T.]

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.

No, fail.

Youndid not.prov he was a cup using the rules of logic - you used a false premise so the argument failed.

 

[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.)

You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?

They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.

But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing. .

 

[G.T.]

But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing. .

"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?

A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."

This fails because A is not yet proven.

 

[PratchettFan]

But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing. .

"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?

A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."

This fails because A is not yet proven.

I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven. It needs to be accepted as a given. That is why it is being called axiomatic. We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now? oh yes) our betters. The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.

 

[MaxGrit]

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.)

You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?

They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.

But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing. .

They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.

You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.

 

[G.T.]

But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing. .

"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?

A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."

This fails because A is not yet proven.

I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven. It needs to be accepted as a given. That is why it is being called axiomatic. We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now? oh yes) our betters. The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.

I understand that, but the problem is it breaks down in that it's most certainly NOT axiomatic.

"Nothing" in the physical sense is not even proven to exist, therefore the "something can't come from nothing" argument fails.

Further, if "nothing" in the physical sense did ever exist, the fact that we have never OBSERVED something coming from nothing does not render it IMPOSSIBLE, only IMPROBABLE, thus it still is an invalid argument in terms of being "proof" of or for anything.

If you put souped up chrome rims on a Dodge Neon, it's still a Dodge Neon. M.D. rawlings is the dodge neon. Bloviation was invented the day he was born.

 

[MaxGrit]

But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing. .

"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?

A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."

This fails because A is not yet proven.

I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven. It needs to be accepted as a given. That is why it is being called axiomatic. We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now? oh yes) our betters. The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.

It's proof that your faith in the religion of atheism compels you to cognitive dissonance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.

You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.

You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.

Utter bollocks!

 

[G.T.]

Cognitive dissonance is saying something exists therefore God made it, while ignoring the close to infinite other possibilities.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.

You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.

Well, ultimately, yes. But the logic that leads to that is a long train, and the atheist doesn't get or know that.

At this point all I'm talking about are those things that everybody knows, including the atheist.

What I just proved in the above, more at, what the atheist NYcarbineer just admitted to knowing just like everybody else:

1. The idea of God is not a figment of human culture. It's a propositional absolute.
2. The existence of the substance of the idea of God cannot be rationally denied. There are only two logically consistent positions to take regarding the question of whether or not the eternally existent, uncaused cause is sentient or not sentient: theism or agnosticism. Strict atheism is irrational, as the possibility that the first uncaused cause is sentient cannot be rationally denied, and the atheist necessarily concedes that there must be an eternally existent, uncaused caused of one kind or the other.

3. (Note how the assertion that the eternally existent, uncaused cause must be sentient doesn't on the face of it violate the rules of logic, whether it be a seemingly unsupported presupposition or not, while the stark denial that it can't be sentient does violate the rules of logic.)

Hence, the real issue is not whether or not there exists an eternally existent, uncaused cause. What is atheism? It's nothing more than the idea that the first uncaused cause it not sentient. And that's all it is.

4. The existence of the universe is the evidence for the eternally existent, uncaused cause.

EVERBODY KNOWS THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.

Aside to QW: Jesus on a bicycle, is that brief enough, in plain enough language? These truths that everybody knows, including the atheist, are some of the fundamental, absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin. What does every friggin' atheist on this thread believe, whether they are trying to give a scientific account for it or not? They believe something has always existed. They believe that an eternally existent, uncaused cause must exist.

These are the things that objectively matter because these are the kind of things everybody knows. These is noise. The noise only further confuses things. I don't do noise. I stick to what matters.