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

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Moronic drivel! There is no "faith in atheism".

 

[G.T.]

Again, there is no proof that something cannot come from nothing, and there is no proof that nothing ever was.

Atheism and theism are equally irrational.

 

[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.

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.

You have serious denial of reality issues.

 

[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.

You have serious denial of reality issues.

^ thats not proof of anything, it's a corny retort to a cogent post

 

[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.

Moronic drivel! There is no "faith in atheism".

You are in denial. Your faith in atheism compels you to have cognitive dissonance.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Moronic drivel! There is no "faith in atheism".

You are in denial. Your faith in atheism compels you to have cognitive dissonance.

Your comments are flash in the pan nothingness, and insults. Always substanceless ad homs.

Congrats, you're meaningless.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Moronic drivel! There is no "faith in atheism".

You are in denial. Your faith in atheism compels you to have cognitive dissonance.

Irony squared!

 

[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.

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.

You have serious denial of reality issues.

^ thats not proof of anything, it's a corny retort to a cogent post

You are literally crazy.

 

[G.T.]

^ called it like it was, e'rrbody

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

No. What you are saying is that 0 + 0 = 4. And then you are insisting that any demand that you back that statement up is a denial. The responsibility for supporting a claim is on the person making the claim. Arguing the claim is proven because the other party does not disprove it is a logical fallacy.

 

[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.

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.

Most new atheists are insane and have blind faith in the religion of atheism.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

Most new atheists are insane and have blind faith in the religion of atheism.

Amazing. It brings to mind that great quote from the movie Inherit the Wind... "Do you ever think about the things you do think about?"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You're confused. I wrote: they can't explain HOW it's possible for something to come from nothing. YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing. So all your babble has nothing to do with the something I said, does it, Einstein? There's nothing you can teach me about the problem of origin, Einstein.

 

[G.T.]

I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.

 

[G.T.]

Anyone who thinks they have proved god needs a serious humble the fuck down cake, it's sort of like a pound cake except you eat it with your ego.....it's hands free.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But that dodges the statement itself. MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.' He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing. From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.

And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing. And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed. This theist calls that something that has always existed God. And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.

 

[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.

No. What you are saying is that 0 + 0 = 4. And then you are insisting that any demand that you back that statement up is a denial. The responsibility for supporting a claim is on the person making the claim. Arguing the claim is proven because the other party does not disprove it is a logical fallacy.

Can't you see that it's you who says 0+0=4?
I call you crazy because you actually believe that 0+0=4. I tell you that 0+0=0. However, you refuses to believe me.
You insists that it's perfectly logical for 0+0=4.
Since 0+0=0, it's self-evident that you have cognitive dissonance.
You are in denial to reality.

 

[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.

But that dodges the statement itself. MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.' He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing. From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.

And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing. And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed. This theist calls that something that has always existed God. And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.

Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR. And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't. All that demonstrates is no one can show it. This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance. Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right. It is a logical fallacy.

I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God. But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.

 

[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.

But that dodges the statement itself. MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.' He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing. From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.

And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing. And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed. This theist calls that something that has always existed God. And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.

I don't lack any understanding, as you presume. It seems like you do.

It's a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing. True.

The absence of being able to answer doesn't PROVE the opposite, though, as you had stated in your last paragraph.

Therein lies the disconnect - or the "what qualifies as proof" leniency that you're showing there.

The absence of an answer is not affirmative proof of something else.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

No. What you are saying is that 0 + 0 = 4. And then you are insisting that any demand that you back that statement up is a denial. The responsibility for supporting a claim is on the person making the claim. Arguing the claim is proven because the other party does not disprove it is a logical fallacy.

Can't you see that it's you who says 0+0=4?
I call you crazy because you actually believe that 0+0=4. I tell you that 0+0=0. However, you refuses to believe me.
You insists that it's perfectly logical for 0+0=4.
Since 0+0=0, it's self-evident that you have cognitive dissonance.
You are in denial to reality.

No. It is you who insist that nothing is something. You have no objective evidence to support your claim. Pointing to the universe and saying "See" is not evidence of anything but the existence of the universe. It proves nothing. So proceed and present your evidence. If you can't then you are claiming no evidence is the same thing as evidence.... nothing = something.

What is self-evident here is that you can't seem to differentiate between what you believe and what you know. I find that to typically be a self-imposed disability.