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

[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.

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.

Do they? Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1. That something comes from nothing?
2. Or that something comes from something?

It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality.

In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."

That's a leap.

The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.

It does matter in the world of rational evidence. There is no evidence - zero - nada - zilch - that something came from nothing. Nobody has ever observed that, witnessed that, or experienced that. Does that mean it is then impossible. Not at all. But the evidence suggests that we should not expect anything to come from nothing.

Conversely we have all observed, witnessed, and experienced something coming from something. We have witnessed oak trees springing forth from the lowly acorn. We have witnessed the birth of human beings, kittens, puppies that evolved from single cell organisms joined to put the forces of life into motion. We have seen chickens and turtles hatched from eggs. But not a single one of us expects to see a human being or kitten or puppy or oak tree or chicken or turtle produced from a vacuum, from nothing, from no source of any kind. We have no way of knowing whether everything that exists came from something, but our universal empirical evidence strongly suggests that everything that we can point to that exists did have an origin someplace.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right, so instead (and even though you knew the intent of the thread) of actually proving the existence of god, you're using semantics like an asshole.

Prove god, or waste space.

The intent of the thread was to argue that there is no valid logical argument for the existence of god. If you read through my post you will see that not only have a i pointed out that, as long as the arguments are internally consistent, any logical argument is valid. I took the time to point out that, using logic, it is possible to prove god does not exist. I even pointed out that only idiots think that the fact that they proved something using logic actually means anything.

In other words, oh he who is an idiot, this was never about semantics, it was always about logic.

 

[G.T.]

Right, so instead (and even though you knew the intent of the thread) of actually proving the existence of god, you're using semantics like an asshole.

Prove god, or waste space.

The intent of the thread was to argue that there is no valid logical argument for the existence of god. If you read through my post you will see that not only have a i pointed out that, as long as the arguments are internally consistent, any logical argument is valid. I took the time to point out that, using logic, it is possible to prove god does not exist. I even pointed out that only idiots think that the fact that they proved something using logic actually means anything.

In other words, oh he who is an idiot, this was never about semantics, it was always about logic.

No, it's about semantics.

He was quite clearly wondering if god can be proven.

You knocked him on term technicalities, instead of being a good and honest chap and honoring the intent of the thread.

That's being a dick.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You're necessarily talking about empirical "proof." Nothingness is even less accessible to scientific inquiry than to rational contemplation, though Krauss has famously taken a few stabs at it.

The embolden is not a legitimate objection to the logical proof that something from nothing is impossible, which is not the same idea as the one I asserted earlier that it is impossible for one to explain how something could come from nothing.

Now, as I did in my earlier demonstration, I'm speaking in terms of ontological and epistemological justification.

Things that are conceptually conceivable but not empirically or rationally justifiable do not invalidate the necessary assertions that follow from a foundational proof that is empirically or rationally justifiable.

Hence, it is not irrational to assert that something (eternally existent, uncaused cause) has always existed.

That which is justifiable is rational. The belief that something cannot come from nothing is justifiable and, consequently, rational.

The fundamental proofs/imperatives that are universally and objectively apparent to all regarding the problem of origin are justifiable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's about semantics.

He was quite clearly wondering if god can be proven.

You knocked him on term technicalities, instead of being a good and honest chap and honoring the intent of the thread.

That's being a dick.

He was wondering no such thing. If he had been wondering he would not have argued that, because there is no epistemology that backs up theism, that proves that atheism is justified because it doesn't. If might prove that agnostics have a good position, but since epistemology is about the validity of opinions based on the amount of evidence supporting them, you cannot claim that the lack of evidence for one theory makes another one valid.

By the way, if you actually read the post where I responded to the OP you will see that I pointed out that it was impossible to provide a sound logical argument that proves that the universe exists. No matter how you try to do it, you will end up relying on a false premise at some point.

in other words, from the very beginning, I was highlighting the weakness of logic to do what he pointed out wasn't happening.

 

[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?"

If there were a god, he would have put a planet with life around every star not just ours.

You know how you know god is all in our heads? You hope your boss doesn't call and when it's someone else you thank god. I do it too. You're in a big hand at the poker table and you win. If you would have lost you'd be out of money. You win so you thank god. Actors and boxers thank god. When one person survives a crash and 100 other people die, they thank god. Why didn't he help the othe 100 people? When people escape death or science cures their cancer, they thank god. What did the baby that died of cancer do that god didn't save her?

It's all in your tiny human heads. Mine too and I want it out! LOL.

Yes. But all these things are subjective. This OP is concerned with logical proofs that are objectively accessible.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.

As for "not provable"? Fine. Have it. And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about things you've never considered.

Shaddup, you bloviate you do not prove or show.

I just proved that you boorishly bloviated about something that had nothing to do with what I wrote, Einstein. You forgot about that already? Gee wiz.

Let's review that, Mr. Short Attention Span:

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? —M.D. Rawlings​

What else did I prove that you either didn't understand or forgot about. LOL!

This post, is a waste of bandwidth. Congrats, wannabe.

Behold: the default position of the schooled who thought to school the teacher. LOL! Making any headway with that guff you were trying to feed us in the face of QW's incontrovertible facts about the essence of logic? Making any headway on the distinction between that which is conceptually conceivable and that which is justifiable knowledge?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, it's about semantics.

He was quite clearly wondering if god can be proven.

You knocked him on term technicalities, instead of being a good and honest chap and honoring the intent of the thread.

That's being a dick.

He was wondering no such thing. If he had been wondering he would not have argued that, because there is no epistemology that backs up theism, that proves that atheism is justified because it doesn't. If might prove that agnostics have a good position, but since epistemology is about the validity of opinions based on the amount of evidence supporting them, you cannot claim that the lack of evidence for one theory makes another one valid.

By the way, if you actually read the post where I responded to the OP you will see that I pointed out that it was impossible to provide a sound logical argument that proves that the universe exists. No matter how you try to do it, you will end up relying on a false premise at some point.

in other words, from the very beginning, I was highlighting the weakness of logic to do what he pointed out wasn't happening.

Precisely. "Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't." (newpolitics).

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

But, of course, what we have here, once again, is the psychology of a pathological liar who knows that "Pointing to the universe and saying 'See' " is a straw man, a stupidity dreamt up by a pathological liar in a pathetic attempt to obscure the demonstration of what everybody knows to be true about the fundamental imperatives of the problem of origin, including pathological liars like you who have already conceded the matter on this thread more than once, but are, frightfully, too stupid to realize that they have unwittingly blurted ideas that show that they do understand the realities of the matter, isn't that right, Mr. I-won't-acknowledge-my-error-regarding-the-full-connotations-of-the-concept-of-objectivity-because-I'm-a-dishonest-little-man?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Just as an aside... If something cannot come from nothing, what did God create all of this something from?

Aside: that silliness has already been addressed, but then you knew that. Thanks.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just as an aside... If something cannot come from nothing, what did God create all of this something from?

That is for God to know and us to wonder about. Perhaps in another time, another dimension we will be given that answer. But if there is/was/has ever been an absolute beginning to anything and everything, that beginning the Theist calls God. And that belief is just as logical as anything the most esteemed and knowledgeable scientist can come up with.

So going back to the OP which posed the following question:

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

So the closest thing we can come up with a syllogism that conclusively demonstrates God's existence:

The universe exists.
Re our universal experience, everything has a beginning from something.
That something theists call God.
Therefore God exists.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."

Demonstrably false.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

This syllogism is logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. --M.D. Rawlings​

"Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.

 

[G.T.]

You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."

Demonstrably false.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

This syllogism is logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. --M.D. Rawlings​

"Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.

The premise is false.

Knowledge exists independent of god.

Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.

 

[PratchettFan]

Just as an aside... If something cannot come from nothing, what did God create all of this something from?

That is for God to know and us to wonder about. Perhaps in another time, another dimension we will be given that answer. But if there is/was/has ever been an absolute beginning to anything and everything, that beginning the Theist calls God. And that belief is just as logical as anything the most esteemed and knowledgeable scientist can come up with.

So going back to the OP which posed the following question:

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

So the closest thing we can come up with a syllogism that conclusively demonstrates God's existence:

The universe exists.
Re our universal experience, everything has a beginning from something.
That something theists call God.
Therefore God exists.

Let us take a possibility then and see where it takes us. Supposing universes are created all the time. Suppose every time you light a match, a by product is the creation of a universe. Does that make the match God?

 

[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.

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

You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."

Demonstrably false.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

This syllogism is logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. --M.D. Rawlings​

"Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.

Regarding anyone missing your pointless and really, really silly babbling in bolded text, why would you presume anyone would give that nonsense anymore than a chuckle?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."

Demonstrably false.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

This syllogism is logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. --M.D. Rawlings​

"Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.

The premise is false.

Knowledge exists independent of god.

Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.

Permit me to ask you a question. Do you agree that knowledge, as understood in terms of its ultimate essence, conceptually presupposes/requires a knower? Inversely: would you agree with the statement that where there is no knower, knowledge doesn't exist?

Let us allow that the multiverse exists. Thus, according to the weak anthropic principle (WAP) coupled with the mechanism of selection, most of the universes within the collectively singular verse would not have any life at all, let alone any sentient life. (You don't have to take my word for it, of course, but asserting the strong anthropic principle for a single universe undermines the force of the WAP, as it arguably supports the necessity of God.)

In a universe where there is no sentient life, knowledge doesn't exist, or knowledge can't exist in a mindless universe.

Right?

 

[G.T.]

Irrelevant, no.matte which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.

You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.

Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.

It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.

 

[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. .

You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."

Demonstrably false.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

This syllogism is logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true if the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect if, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. --M.D. Rawlings​

"Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.

Regarding anyone missing your pointless and really, really silly babbling in bolded text, why would you presume anyone would give that nonsense anymore than a chuckle?

Anyone?

Start with Kant or Cornelius Van Til, and the many, many, really, really smarter minds than yours who take it very seriously. The teleological argument is not for weak minds, so, by all means, don't worry your pretty little head about it, just be your adorable self as the real men handle this one.

 

[G.T.]

Sexist comment.

 

[sealybobo]

Right, so instead (and even though you knew the intent of the thread) of actually proving the existence of god, you're using semantics like an asshole.

Prove god, or waste space.

The intent of the thread was to argue that there is no valid logical argument for the existence of god. If you read through my post you will see that not only have a i pointed out that, as long as the arguments are internally consistent, any logical argument is valid. I took the time to point out that, using logic, it is possible to prove god does not exist. I even pointed out that only idiots think that the fact that they proved something using logic actually means anything.

In other words, oh he who is an idiot, this was never about semantics, it was always about logic.

From the supposed evidence we have on god, it looks to us like man made up god a long time ago because we wondered what happens to us when we die and then kings and Pharoahs eventually used religion to control the masses. But it was our primitive ancestors invented him.

Unless you think he really talked to Adam as a snake, talked to Moses, talked to Mohammad, talked to Joseph Smith Noah or came to visit us in the form of Jesus, and had to go through 12 months of Mary being pregnant, all to grow up to be crucified as it was prophecized.

So God was on a suicide mission?

We surmise this is all a myth. Not just one religion but the entire concept. Then we got some other guy on another thread telling us we'll go to hell if we don't believe his story. LOL