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

[Hollie]

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
(scroll down to "counter arguments")

Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff

More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!

Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies.

I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.

I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."

You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.

Yeah, well, in the meantime, real agnostics and absolutist atheists agree with me and hold that all you relativists, on this thread and on the Internet with your silly little videos, whatever your religious inclinations, are slap-happy out of your minds.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178804/

Are those the real agnostics and absolutist atheists you meet at the Kingdom Hall?

 

[G.T.]

Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.

Derp derp derp

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!

Cute, but totally NOT what I said. The "laws of thought" are human constructs for humans. Omniscient God doesn't need thought. Relativism is the belief that all truth is relative, which is not what I have argued or what I believe. I am not a Relativist. I have argued that we cannot know truth, we can only believe we know truth. God knows truth, God is omniscient. I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.

Rawlings, I don't hate you, I just believe you are wrong about your incarnation of God. The God I believe in is not constrained by or limited to the constructs of human thought. There is no need for the God I believe in to "think" or have sentience, human emotion, or even use logic. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created everything including humans, and by extension, all parameters of human thought.

Dude!

Boss: I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.
​

It has been refuted! Even this statement is bad, misleading.

The proper perception of logic is that it universally prevails and is never wrong! Only the information we plug in to it can be wrong. That factor of our finiteness has nothing to do with logic in and of itself!

Further, you incessantly equated (1) a priori axioms of human logic with (2) the merely tentative, ever-revisable and/or falsifiable probabilities/inferences of scientific, inductive reasoning. The former are not revisable. They are absolutes. They always hold. We cannot escape them. They do not support your position regarding the origins of logic. Indeed, they utterly refute it!

Moreover, you emphatically stated, more than once, that the problem with the inductively derived probabilities of science in history was a problem with logic itself. Bull! The laws of logic are the fixed, unchanging axioms of human cognition for all that we do in logic and science. That's why QW's nonsense is so crazy! If the ever-revisable inferences of science trumped or had primacy over the laws of logic and the philosophy of science, how in the hell could we ever independently verify or falsify anything? From what other fixed point of apprehension do we accomplish this? There is no other! Our organic logic alerts us to the problems of theories in the face of new information, and we revise our previous convictions about empirical things accordingly. In the meantime, the rational convictions of first principles never change! The prescriptive laws of logic are the primary foundation and the infrastructure of human apprehension, not secondary.

Are you kidding me? I put up with page after page of this rank stupidity, with the insults and mockery that went with it from utter buffoons trying to tell me that I'm the irrational one: QW, Foxfyre, Hollie, BreezeWood, seallybobo, Amrchaos . . . that Betty Boop Dingbat Inevitable , a fudge-packing degenerate trying to lecture me about morality . . . and others. Giving credit where credit is due, even GT knew that QW and Company's blather on this point was sheer idiocy . . . but then he starts spouting his mangled prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy which amounts to the same thing. LOL! And these are the same buffoons you incessantly complained about the baseball bats with which I smacked 'em upside their pin heads, mostly satire. LOL!

Stop being mean.

Shut up, you mealy mouthed buffoons!

LOL!

The relativist thought they were going to run this thread. LOL! Wrong. Not this time.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.

Derp derp derp

By the way, GT, why did you go all crazy relativist when knowing damn well QW's computer analogy was whack?

 

[G.T.]

Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.

Derp derp derp

By the way, GT, why did you go all crazy relativist when knowing damn well QW's computer analogy was whack?

You have no clue what the fuck you've read.

 

[Justin Davis]

You never got it. You've been duped into the cult of two.

 

[Justin Davis]

Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.

Derp derp derp

By the way, GT, why did you go all crazy relativist when knowing damn well QW's computer analogy was whack?

You have no clue what the fuck you've read.

Is it a secrete?

 

[Justin Davis]

interestingly, the above quote is a certain summation of the two religious zealots - and their demonic, repressive religious dogmatism ... hook line and sinker.

grow up boys ...

.

Never a feather of what you're talking about just mumbo jumbo 24/7 from you. No one here even knows what you're talking about half the time. Slap some sense into yourself.

.

View attachment 34130


gunslinger, you are simply afraid of a critical analysis on the practical and demonstrative level you are not able to manipulate.

.

Shaking in my boots.

Would you care to write something coherent so we could know what you're talking about?

 

[G.T.]

Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.

Derp derp derp

By the way, GT, why did you go all crazy relativist when knowing damn well QW's computer analogy was whack?

You have no clue what the fuck you've read.

Is it a secrete?

Is this English?

 

[Justin Davis]

Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.

Derp derp derp

Well, I guess always pretending not to understand is easier than coming to terms with how stupid you are. Carry on.

 

[Justin Davis]

Is this English?

Is it a secrete?

 

[Boss]

Dude!

Boss: I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.

It has been refuted! Even this statement is bad, misleading.

The proper perception of logic is that it universally prevails and is never wrong! Only the information we plug in to it can be wrong.

All you are doing is granting logic a caveat of "information plugged in" which doesn't make any sense. LOGIC IS THE INFORMATION PLUGGED IN! That's WHAT Logic IS! Without any information, there is NO Logic! You can't make a logical argument without information! It's not possible! Logic is the reasoning of information, that's all it is or ever will be.

 

[Hollie]

Boss: Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they do defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They do defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!

Cute, but totally NOT what I said. The "laws of thought" are human constructs for humans. Omniscient God doesn't need thought. Relativism is the belief that all truth is relative, which is not what I have argued or what I believe. I am not a Relativist. I have argued that we cannot know truth, we can only believe we know truth. God knows truth, God is omniscient. I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.

Rawlings, I don't hate you, I just believe you are wrong about your incarnation of God. The God I believe in is not constrained by or limited to the constructs of human thought. There is no need for the God I believe in to "think" or have sentience, human emotion, or even use logic. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created everything including humans, and by extension, all parameters of human thought.

Dude!

Boss: I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.
​

It has been refuted! Even this statement is bad, misleading.

The proper perception of logic is that it universally prevails and is never wrong! Only the information we plug in to it can be wrong. That factor of our finiteness has nothing to do with logic in and of itself!

Further, you incessantly equated (1) a priori axioms of human logic with (2) the merely tentative, ever-revisable and/or falsifiable probabilities/inferences of scientific, inductive reasoning. The former are not revisable. They are absolutes. They always hold. We cannot escape them. They do not support your position regarding the origins of logic. Indeed, they utterly refute it!

Moreover, you emphatically stated, more than once, that the problem with the inductively derived probabilities of science in history was a problem with logic itself. Bull! The laws of logic are the fixed, unchanging axioms of human cognition for all that we do in logic and science. That's why QW's nonsense is so crazy! If the ever-revisable inferences of science trumped or had primacy over the laws of logic and the philosophy of science, how in the hell could we ever independently verify or falsify anything? From what other fixed point of apprehension do we accomplish this? There is no other! Our organic logic alerts us to the problems of theories in the face of new information, and we revise our previous convictions about empirical things accordingly. In the meantime, the rational convictions of first principles never change! The prescriptive laws of logic are the primary foundation and the infrastructure of human apprehension, not secondary.

Are you kidding me? I put up with page after page of this rank stupidity, with the insults and mockery that went with it from utter buffoons trying to tell me that I'm the irrational one: QW, Foxfyre, Hollie, BreezeWood, seallybobo, Amrchaos . . . that Betty Boop Dingbat Inevitable , a fudge-packing degenerate trying to lecture me about morality . . . and others. Giving credit where credit is due, even GT knew that QW and Company's blather on this point was sheer idiocy . . . but then he starts spouting his mangled prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy which amounts to the same thing. LOL! And these are the same buffoons you incessantly complained about the baseball bats with which I smacked 'em upside their pin heads, mostly satire. LOL!

Stop being mean.

Shut up, you mealy mouthed buffoons!

LOL!

The relativist thought they were going to run this thread. LOL! Wrong. Not this time.

LOL!

The Jehovah's Witness thought he was capable of producing a coherent argument. LOL!


LOL!

 

[Justin Davis]

All you are doing is granting logic a caveat of "information plugged in" which doesn't make any sense. LOGIC IS THE INFORMATION PLUGGED IN! That's WHAT Logic IS! Without any information, there is NO Logic! You can't make a logical argument without information! It's not possible! Logic is the reasoning of information, that's all it is or ever will be.

"Logic is the reasoning of information?"

I know that's English. I can tell because all of the letters in that sentence are in the English alphabet and all of the words are in English dictionaries. But I'm ding dang if I can translate it into anything that makes sense.

 

[Justin Davis]

The Jehovah's Witness thought he was capable of producing a coherent argument. LOL!

I know that's English. I can tell because all of the letters in that sentence are in the English alphabet and all of the words are in English dictionaries. But I'm ding dang if I can translate it into anything that makes sense.

 

[Hollie]

The Jehovah's Witness thought he was capable of producing a coherent argument. LOL!

I know that's English. I can tell because all of the letters in that sentence are in the English alphabet and all of the words are in English dictionaries. But I'm ding dang if I can translate it into anything that makes sense.

Well, you do suffer from any limitations.

 

[BreezeWood]

The relativist thought they were going to run this thread. LOL! Wrong. Not this time.

as for the past ????

No one comes to the Father except through me.

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani -

'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'


- obviously the absolutionist in terms of religion leaves little to be desired .... rawly.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot!

Well I am not really a "theist" as much as a Spiritualist. However, from what I know of theism, all theistic belief centers on a God who is omniscient and omnipotent.

Omniscient definition, having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Omnipotent definition, almighty or infinite in power, as God.

You are arguing to the contrary of this, yet you still want to run back to it when challenged. I'm starting to wonder if you and Justin aren't Atheists trying to punk us.

And how about STOP exploiting other posters and pretending they are your allies here. No one that I can see is agreeing with you on any damn thing, except for Justin.

Dear Boss:
Whether or not MD "focuses" on the fact that "we don't know in terms of SCIENCE know things" (which he SAID is DELIBERATELY avoiding to focus on the logic/definitions for what we call God), that is still a GIVEN.

MD may not acknowledge this under your terms.

Only if you say it under HIS terms, his way being that SCIENCE does not "prove" anything (ie man's knowledge is limited in this sense) then you can get an agreement out of him.

He is not going to change to your terms, or mine, for saying the same thing.

M.D. objected to my interpretation of Godel as saying man's knowledge was based on hand-me-down information while only God's knowledge was straight from the source.
I thought that was saying the "same thing" but

==> M.D. Objected <==

So he is just not getting that you and I are saying the SAME THING
he means when he says "man's science doesn't prove things."

Boss he is not able to toggle back and forth between "relative"
expressions of the same thing.

If you can't do this either, you and he will continue to fight
like Bulldogs or Pit Bulls wanting to control the rhetoric.

The concept is given. We can't argue it.

What is off is that M.D. says it a "different way"
and for WHATEVER reason cannot handle
anyone else saying the same concept in other terms.

He wants everyone to "conform" to his terminology to
get everyone on the same page. He can't deal with relative expressions,
even though we all know we aren't God and can't contain that knowledge.

M.D. is saying there is universal REPRESENTATION for God
that is based on pure LOGIC DEFINITIONS so if you agree to
align with those, then these are consistent.

He ACKNOWLEDGES that using Science isn't "really going to prove anything absolutely" == presumably for the reasons you point out.

For whatever reason he REJECTS when it is Stated or Explained that way.

Only if you say it HIS WAY that man's science only verifies or falsifies
but does not prove, then he can tell you are on the same page with him.

So I also had to drop whatever way I used of saying or interpreting or agreeing with
GT on this concept, and just stick with MD's way of saying it.

Boss it is like if I am multilingual and can say the same thing in
German, Spanish, Russian and English,
But MD only speaks English
well of COURSE I'm going to stick to saying it in English.

it isn't MD fault his brain only works in one mode
like I can only speak English and just go to pieces when I have to
try to think in French or Vietnamese; my brain doesn't go there very easily.

MD language is hardwired and he just doesn't get this
concept of relative expressions for the same thing. His brain
isn't designed to diversify, that's someone else's job like mine,
but he's designed to be bull headed in charge of keeping the pack
on the same page, so he rejects anything that doesn't fit in that set.

it's not personal, it's spiritual, it's part of his design and purpose.

So if that's how he works, I try to stick to that.

just like if a cello has a different range of notes than
a piano, then you let the cello stay in that range.

you don't ask the cello to play notes in a different range or key
that isn't natural for that instrument.

You translate the same song or melody line or harmony
into the range of that instrument, and we can still play along.

MD doesn't play different instruments so he doesn't get that.
it's not his talent, he has other things he needs to be focused on.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Hollie and Justin Davis:
If Justin or whoever on here is "Jehovah's Witness"
let's get it clear who that is.

JW need to be talked with a certain way.
So this is not a light label to throw around.

You don't just randomly label speakers of foreign languages
"Italian" "French" "German" -- ie whatever language is foreign to you.
You have to be SPECIFIC what language they really do speak
if you are going to communicate EFFECTIVELY with that person and each other!

Hollie you remind me of Helen Keller
who didn't think it mattered what the string of
letters meant in her hands: cake, doll, eat, etc. were all random to her.

It took her teacher dragging her out to the back
and running W-A-T-E-R over her hands to make the "connection"
what those letters meant, as opposed to C-A-T or D-O-L-L

You think these religions are all random and meaningless,
so you call anyone any label you THINK means a 'closeminded religious follower'

Hollie these religions are LANGUAGES
for concepts and relations between abstract principles and "collective" levels
of looking at the world.

Don't be like Helen Keller before she had her mind opened
and realized these SYMBOLS actually MEANT SOMETHING REAL.

Once she understood that, she became an advocate for reaching out and breaking down barriers to the deaf and blind that had never been tackled before.

Hollie if you as an atheist were to understand that these languages are real,
you could help open the door for nontheists to be able to communicate
with theists instead of rejecting each other over the language barrier.

I really hope pray and "meditate on wisdom" that you get this.

We need all the help we can get to break down these barriers,
very similar to what Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan
overcame as historic heroes. the symbols mean something,
and they can be used as positive tools, not just repeating random garbage!

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?

BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
God God why have you forsaken me!

And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.

Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
Jehovah Akbar!

MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....