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

[sealybobo]

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.

Number 13

Why there is no 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?

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.

Oh, what a shame you christian Taliban are throttled by secular laws that prevent you and the Ayatollah's you so admire from fulfilling your Dark Ages fantasies.

Not to worry sweety. You're hardly a real man.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Irrelevant? Keep an open mind. There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.

Excellent! You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away. In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse. We can dispense with it now.

Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.

Unknown/undiscovered facts are not knowledge. Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.

From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.

Right?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

m.d. is the man in the crowd at 1:39:00.

NDT shuts him down pretty soundly.

Well, we'll see about this tomorrow. But we may be sure that one of two things are going to happen tomorrow after I view that portion of the video: either (1) something stupid is being attributed to me or (2), and this is more likely, tomorrow something stupid will be shut down by me.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Irrelevant? Keep an open mind. There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.

Excellent! You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away. In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse. We can dispense with it now.

Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.

Unknown/undiscovered facts are not knowledge. Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.

From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.

Right?

Wrong, thumpy. The teleological only en

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.

Irrelevant? Keep an open mind. There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.

Excellent! You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away. In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse. We can dispense with it now.

Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.

Unknown/undiscovered facts are not knowledge. Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.

From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.

Right?

Wrong, thumpy. The teleological argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

The thumper looks around his reality and sees order. This is in conflict to the fact of a universe that is largely, utterly hostile to life as we know it. However, this serves only to promote the a predefined conclusion the thumper has about his environment. To the thumper, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the thumper will insist that natural processes cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a supernatural being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the thumper makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then it also follow that the Designer exhibits design as well. Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the thumper will reply that his partisan gods, being the Designers, fall outside of the laws the gods themselves create, else how can they create the laws in the first place? The answer is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. The thumper will insist that their gods are an "uncaused caused". The thumper will insist that their gods are excluded from the very thing that they insist must apply to all of existence. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.

Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply is, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways.
We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the god model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?
In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the thumper simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his assertion, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he purports -- and this includes the atheist perspective. Nothing in the teleological argument supports the idea of an existing god, and hence it cannot be used to prove such.

Since the thumper is trying to prove or explain the existence of one god, eternal and infinite, the teleological argument actually prohibits his success since to accept his parameters requires an endless and infinite pyramid of gods, each being the super-designer of the one below it, or the product of the one above it.

The natural explanation, that existence is natural and that nature requires no magic and supernaturalism to become cohesive and structured, not only makes more sense, but follows with observable evidence. Existence evolves. It's evolving right now. We can see the pattern time and time again.

 

[Hollie]

m.d. is the man in the crowd at 1:39:00.

NDT shuts him down pretty soundly.

Well, we'll see about this tomorrow. But we may be sure that one of two things are going to happen tomorrow after I view that portion of the video: either (1) something stupid is being attributed to me or (2), and this is more likely, tomorrow something stupid will be shut down by me.

We can also be sure of one thing in particular: there will be a lot of stupid in your posts. Your posts and stupid are like the confluence of religious fundamentalism and ignorance.

 

[G.T.]

The argument from design has been soundly defeated, so much so its not even worthy of adult discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods? Can you prove it? Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge? Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge? For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.

And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.

Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:

1. The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
. . . .or. . . .

2. There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.

It goes back to the syllogism:

The universe exists.
So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.

 

[Hollie]

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.

How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods? Can you prove it? Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge? Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge? For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.

And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.

Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:

1. The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
. . . .or. . . .

2. There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.

It goes back to the syllogism:

The universe exists.
So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.

The problem with the above is that you have predefined your conclusion. We're still left with a complete void of evidence for your gods or the gods of others which are just as likely contenders as yours.

I contend that the physical world is the very world within which we live. No supernatural entities to appeal to, no mysterious ‘father’ watching over us and no one to judge us except ourselves. If your claim is that there is in fact something outside of the natural (physical) world -- then define for us what exists outside of this physical world, and demonstrate it before you ask us to assume your contention that there really is something outside the physical and natural world. Now you tell me: what breaks the impasse? Assertion or verifiable data?

Evidence is the final arbiter of claims made. Where is your evidence?

I do indeed make the positive assertion that gods don't exist but only after hearing the theist assert that this or that god does exist.

So in response to all of that, I have an opinion and that opinion is "your assertions hold no substance unless demonstrated." In that sense, I do in fact say "gods don't exist". But you say they do, so it's your job to prove it, not mine.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods? Can you prove it? Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge? Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge? For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.

And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.

Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:

1. The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
. . . .or. . . .

2. There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.

It goes back to the syllogism:

The universe exists.
So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.

The problem with the above is that you have predefined your conclusion. We're still left with a complete void of evidence for your gods or the gods of others which are just as likely contenders as yours.

I contend that the physical world is the very world within which we live. No supernatural entities to appeal to, no mysterious ‘father’ watching over us and no one to judge us except ourselves. If your claim is that there is in fact something outside of the natural (physical) world -- then define for us what exists outside of this physical world, and demonstrate it before you ask us to assume your contention that there really is something outside the physical and natural world. Now you tell me: what breaks the impasse? Assertion or verifiable data?

Evidence is the final arbiter of claims made. Where is your evidence?

I do indeed make the positive assertion that gods don't exist but only after hearing the theist assert that this or that god does exist.

So in response to all of that, I have an opinion and that opinion is "your assertions hold no substance unless demonstrated." In that sense, I do in fact say "gods don't exist". But you say they do, so it's your job to prove it, not mine.

You must have missed the evidence. The universe exists. The syllogism I used to make a case for God makes every bit as much sense as anything you can argue that God does not exist.

 

[Hollie]

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.

How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods? Can you prove it? Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge? Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge? For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.

And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.

Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:

1. The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
. . . .or. . . .

2. There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.

It goes back to the syllogism:

The universe exists.
So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.

The problem with the above is that you have predefined your conclusion. We're still left with a complete void of evidence for your gods or the gods of others which are just as likely contenders as yours.

I contend that the physical world is the very world within which we live. No supernatural entities to appeal to, no mysterious ‘father’ watching over us and no one to judge us except ourselves. If your claim is that there is in fact something outside of the natural (physical) world -- then define for us what exists outside of this physical world, and demonstrate it before you ask us to assume your contention that there really is something outside the physical and natural world. Now you tell me: what breaks the impasse? Assertion or verifiable data?

Evidence is the final arbiter of claims made. Where is your evidence?

I do indeed make the positive assertion that gods don't exist but only after hearing the theist assert that this or that god does exist.

So in response to all of that, I have an opinion and that opinion is "your assertions hold no substance unless demonstrated." In that sense, I do in fact say "gods don't exist". But you say they do, so it's your job to prove it, not mine.

You must have missed the evidence. The universe exists. The syllogism I used to make a case for God makes every bit as much sense as anything you can argue that God does not exist.

Not at all. Substitute "The Easter Bunny" for gods in your example.

 

[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.

How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods? Can you prove it? Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge? Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge? For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.

And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.

Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:

1. The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
. . . .or. . . .

2. There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.

It goes back to the syllogism:

The universe exists.
So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.

WAAAAaAAAAAaAAAAAaaaay too simple minded.



First of all, I SHOWED YOU knowledge independent of God. One always NECESSARILY knows whether or not they KNOW everything. That is ALWAYS TRUE. Independent of the Universe itself that is always true.

Further, I didn't say knowledge exists independent of beings capable of comprehending it. Knowledge only exists if there is a knower; whereas facts exist whether there is a knower or not.

Being as I'm a mind, i.e. capable of comprehending knowledge, knowledge exists. Just like that. And that god is not proven, it is also not proven that god is necessary for knowledge and I also have shown the opposite by explaining the universal absolute: a knower will always know if it is all knowing, or not.



After the part where you said "ultimately," and then posted two possible scenarios?

No. There are several thousand more scenarios, and also ones we can't even think of.

Here is one:

#3. something can come from nothing, us undeveloped humans just do not know that yet.

That that possibility is THERE, you do not EXCLUDE it if you're thinking CORRECTLY, anyways.

You do not say "all things we don't understand or know yet are impossible."

Why? b/c that's retarded, thats why.

 

[Justin Davis]

Your failure to respond to post #439 has seriously harmed your credibility.

Your failure to comprehend the FACT that the existence of the Universe is NOT evidence for your mythical God further harms your credibility.

That your latest response was nothing more than a personal attack pushes your credibility close to zero.

Better start upping your game if you want to be taken seriously around here.

I need to up my game? I don't get people like you. I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to understand how things work. So you say you didn't lie? Okay. Then your crazy because your reality is not reality. I didn't think or say what you claim. Got it? I already showed that I didn't say or think what you claim. You're just crazy, that's what you are. I also told you that the misunderstanding between us was partially my fault because I've always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for how time began via the quantum vacuum. But it doesn't. That's the only thing I didn't know. Thanks for the tip. But it's you who still doesn’t get any of this. According to quantum theory the quantum vacuum has always existed, though that is merely an assumption allowed by the theory. Didn't you know that? You implied that the recycling model is timeless, looped, eternal? Either way, the idea of a supposedly eternally existing material account is nothing new. By the way, how does your endless cycle of big bangs begin in the first place without all those gyrations? NO. Your origin question or insinuation of a material account is nothing new with regard to the problem of origin. NO. I don’t believe that the rational and empirical evidence discussed on this forum adds up to a material first cause. Got it? And I got nothing more to day to you because you're crazy.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods? Can you prove it? Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge? Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge? For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.

And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.

Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:

1. The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
. . . .or. . . .

2. There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.

It goes back to the syllogism:

The universe exists.
So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.

The problem with the above is that you have predefined your conclusion. We're still left with a complete void of evidence for your gods or the gods of others which are just as likely contenders as yours.

I contend that the physical world is the very world within which we live. No supernatural entities to appeal to, no mysterious ‘father’ watching over us and no one to judge us except ourselves. If your claim is that there is in fact something outside of the natural (physical) world -- then define for us what exists outside of this physical world, and demonstrate it before you ask us to assume your contention that there really is something outside the physical and natural world. Now you tell me: what breaks the impasse? Assertion or verifiable data?

Evidence is the final arbiter of claims made. Where is your evidence?

I do indeed make the positive assertion that gods don't exist but only after hearing the theist assert that this or that god does exist.

So in response to all of that, I have an opinion and that opinion is "your assertions hold no substance unless demonstrated." In that sense, I do in fact say "gods don't exist". But you say they do, so it's your job to prove it, not mine.

You must have missed the evidence. The universe exists. The syllogism I used to make a case for God makes every bit as much sense as anything you can argue that God does not exist.

Not at all. Substitute "The Easter Bunny" for gods in your example.

Only if you wish to call God "the Easter Bunny". I don't think God really cares by what name we all him and I think He is isn't all that interested in our theology. I think we feeble humans are as incapable of knowing and understanding more than a tiny part of all that God is just as we are incapable of knowing and understanding only a teensy fraction of all the universe is or all the science there is to know.

But I do know that it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that God exists than any reason or logic anybody can come up with for why God does not exist.

 

[G.T.]

Energy always having existed / having NO beginning is not as plausible as a sentient creator of a horribly unstable universe?

Laughable.

 

[chikenwing]

There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.

if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.

in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.

Using pure logic,what are the numerical odds that A.life just forms on its own through some kind of??,B life finds a way to stay alive ,C li8fe finds a way to reproduce its self,while doing the 2 previous large and time consuming tasks.

Mathematically,what would the odds be?

 

[G.T.]

There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.

if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.

in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.

Using pure logic,what are the numerical odds that A.life just forms on its own through some kind of??,B life finds a way to stay alive ,C li8fe finds a way to reproduce its self,while doing the 2 previous large and time consuming tasks.

Mathematically,what would the odds be?

That is unknowable without knowing the amount of life there is in the universe, and if there are multiverses - and then the size and age of the multiverses, etc etc etc


The answer to your question is unknowable. The odds might be great. Our universe might be a tiny pebble compared to the multiverse, and our earth-life might be a tiny pebble of the life in our very own universe.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.

if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.

in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.

Using pure logic,what are the numerical odds that A.life just forms on its own through some kind of??,B life finds a way to stay alive ,C li8fe finds a way to reproduce its self,while doing the 2 previous large and time consuming tasks.

Mathematically,what would the odds be?

Well, either it was or it was not. Since there is no evidence to support either side, that would make the odds 50/50.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You must have missed the evidence. The universe exists. The syllogism I used to make a case for God makes every bit as much sense as anything you can argue that God does not exist.

Hollie knows that the evidence for a sentient, externally existent uncaused cause, as opposed to a mindless, externally existent uncaused cause, is: the existence of the universe. Ask Hollie why he/she has the idea of a sentient, externally existent uncaused cause in his/her head, you know, the idea whose substance he/she keeps denying, proving he/she recognizes the idea for what it is, every time he/she considers the origin of . . . the universe.

What is the evidence for a mindless, externally existent uncaused cause?

Answer: The universe.

What is the evidence for a sentient, externally existent uncaused cause?

Answer: The universe.

What's the only difference between these two ideas of origin?

Answer: Sentience vs. Mindlessness.

Therefore, Hollie is a liar. Hollie knows what the evidence for God's existence is though he/she doesn't believe the externally existent uncaused cause is sentient, but mindless.

What's the evidence that the externally existent uncaused cause mindless, not sentient?

Answer: *crickets chirping*

Case closed. Everybody knows these things are true about the issue of origin.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your failure to respond to post #439 has seriously harmed your credibility.

Your failure to comprehend the FACT that the existence of the Universe is NOT evidence for your mythical God further harms your credibility.

That your latest response was nothing more than a personal attack pushes your credibility close to zero.

Better start upping your game if you want to be taken seriously around here.

I need to up my game? I don't get people like you. I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to understand how things work. So you say you didn't lie? Okay. Then your crazy because your reality is not reality. I didn't think or say what you claim. Got it? I already showed that I didn't say or think what you claim. You're just crazy, that's what you are. I also told you that the misunderstanding between us was partially my fault because I've always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for how time began via the quantum vacuum. But it doesn't. That's the only thing I didn't know. Thanks for the tip. But it's you who still doesn’t get any of this. According to quantum theory the quantum vacuum has always existed, though that is merely an assumption allowed by the theory. Didn't you know that? You implied that the recycling model is timeless, looped, eternal? Either way, the idea of a supposedly eternally existing material account is nothing new. By the way, how does your endless cycle of big bangs begin in the first place without all those gyrations? NO. Your origin question or insinuation of a material account is nothing new with regard to the problem of origin. NO. I don’t believe that the rational and empirical evidence discussed on this forum adds up to a material first cause. Got it? And I got nothing more to day to you because you're crazy.

LOL! I see that you had a run in with ol' forked tongue. Also, bear in mind that Aristotle, for example, held to a steady state model, yet asserted the cosmological argument for God's existence. Why? Because of the obvious necessity of some kind of transcendent origin apart from what he called divisible magnitude (mass, energy, time, space), an obviously contingent substance that didn't have the nature of agency at all. Ultimately what the atheist confounds is the distinction between agency and mechanism.