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

[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.

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.

I don't know what's up with that guy. But he isn't right in the head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Can you provide a sound argument to defend that position, or are we supposed to take your conclusion as an irrefutable fact because you are too lazy to think up any type of logical proof at all?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That, in and of itself, does not prove that god did not give you that knowledge.

 

[G.T.]

No it proves god is not necessary to possess that knowledge, only my brain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Can you define mind? What is the scientific explanation for a mind that is independent of the underlying chemistry and biology that makes up brain? Given the fact that science has found evidence that free will exists, does your mind persist after the death of the brain?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

So, the only possible god, according to you, is one that you refuse to believe in.

Makes it pretty easy for you to pretend you know what you are talking about, doesn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it proves god is not necessary to possess that knowledge, only my brain.

How?

Keep in mind that you already claimed that your mind is the seat of your knowledge, and that there is a difference between your mind and your brain. One is irrefutable fact, the other is a major question in science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Try giving an answer for the life we know about. What are the odds that life even started on the Earth? Given the fact that you, erroneously, claim that life was almost wiped out five times since it began on Earth, what are the odds that it could have survived as long as it has? What are the odds that we developed multiple species that rely on two sexes in order to survive when most people can think of more efficient means of reproduction?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

I'm sorry. You must have missed the devastating blow I dealt that claim in these posts:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/

This is a perfect example of how the atheist has deceived himself due to his confusion about the distinction between the respective essences of agency and mechanism. The fact of the matter is that all of the classical arguments for God's existence are no less compelling today than they have been for millennia. In fact, it is due to the atheist's confusion about all kinds of things, compounded by his compulsion to unwittingly superimpose his metaphysical apriority on science and his intellectual dishonesty regarding the absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin, which EVERBODY KNOWS, that he is blind to the fact that these arguments are even more powerful today than ever before precisely because of what we know to be true today from science. The atheist thinks it's the other way around, but that's only because he doesn't recognize his purely subjective teleological claptrap for it is and he doesn't know what the objective facts of cognition are in the light of these arguments coupled with the implications of the general and special theories of relativity, for example, quantum physics, abiogenetic research, biochemistry, genetics. . . .

They think they understand the nature of these arguments when they don't, because their minds are as closed as slammed-shut doors.

Free thinkers?

Bra ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

 

[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?

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

Wrong Adorable. G.T. and I are discussing the transcendental argument for God's existence here, not the teleological argument, which tells me you didn't even bother to read the posts in the above. Even more embarrassing for you is the fact that the post you're saying is all wrong is in fact my summarization of G.T.'s beliefs, not mine! I thought you were on his side. LOL!

See. This is what I'm talking about: minds as closed as slammed-shut doors!

As for that wall of irrelevancy regarding the teleological argument, I've already quashed the scientifically and philosophically benighted bunk of the atheist laymen here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/

 

[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 argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

Wrong Adorable. G.T. and I are discussing the transcendental argument for God's existence here, not the teleological argument, which tells me you didn't even bother to read the posts in the above. Even more embarrassing for you is the fact that the post you're saying is all wrong is in fact my summarization of G.T.'s beliefs, not mine! I thought you were on his side. LOL!

See. This is what I'm talking about: minds as closed as slammed-shut doors!

As for that wall of irrelevancy regarding the teleological argument, I've already quashed the scientifically and philosophically benighted bunk of the atheist laymen here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/

I was certain that direct refutations to your pointless claims would go unanswered.

The best way of dealing with pompous blowhards / religious extremists is to simply lay out for them in declarative terms just how bankrupt their appeals to magic and supernaturalism really are. Invariably, they react just as you did, they scramble for a hasty retreat.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Try giving an answer for the life we know about. What are the odds that life even started on the Earth? Given the fact that you, erroneously, claim that life was almost wiped out five times since it began on Earth, what are the odds that it could have survived as long as it has? What are the odds that we developed multiple species that rely on two sexes in order to survive when most people can think of more efficient means of reproduction?

That's actually quite an admission that your designer gods are hopelessly inept and incompetent "designers". You fundies are your own worst enemies when attempting to promote super-magical gawds as the engines of existence.

 

[Hollie]

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

I'm sorry. You must have missed the devastating blow I dealt that claim in these posts:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/

This is a perfect example of how the atheist has deceived himself due to his confusion about the distinction between the respective essences of agency and mechanism. The fact of the matter is that all of the classical arguments for God's existence are no less compelling today than they have been for millennia. In fact, it is due to the atheist's confusion about all kinds of things, compounded by his compulsion to unwittingly superimpose his metaphysical apriority on science and his intellectual dishonesty regarding the absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin, which EVERBODY KNOWS, that he is blind to the fact that these arguments are even more powerful today than ever before precisely because of what we know to be true today from science. The atheist thinks it's the other way around, but that's only because he doesn't recognize his purely subjective teleological claptrap for it is and he doesn't know what the objective facts of cognition are in the light of these arguments coupled with the implications of the general and special theories of relativity, for example, quantum physics, abiogenetic research, biochemistry, genetics. . . .

They think they understand the nature of these arguments when they don't, because their minds are as closed as slammed-shut doors.

Free thinkers?

Bra ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Wow. That rambling, blundering, pointless assembly of confused stuttering and mumbling was even more pompous than your usual nonsense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's actually quite an admission that your designer gods are hopelessly inept and incompetent "designers". You fundies are your own worst enemies when attempting to promote super-magical gawds as the engines of existence.

My designer gods? Can you tell me more about my gods? I don't recall ever saying anything to you about what I believe, are you listening to those voices in your head again?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

NDT shuts him down pretty soundly.

Whaaaaa?

First of all, the quantum vacuum wherein all the degrees of freedom are in their lowest-energy state (or ground state), which, presumably, is what the man in the crowd is alluding to given that Krauss is on the panel, is not a metaphysical nothingness, but a material something, and Krauss knows that. But what the man in the crowd may not have ever consider and what has never occurred to the materialist Krauss, apparently, is that if it truly were a metaphysical . . . um . . . uh . . . how exactly would we affirm that via the methods of science? I imagine that we might be able to describe it from this side of things mathematically, but then what precisely would be the objection to the notion that what we were describing were a transcendent realm of being that were not a nothing, but a something of an alternate substance. For those who can reach it: if such a moment ever came, the knowledge of the mathematical theorem would exist in our minds as the link to something and would be, presumably, compelled by something that we had come to understand scientifically from this side of things. Food for thought.

NDT's response to the man in the crowd's suggestion is obtuse, as he responds to a theological proposition as if it were a scientific proposition. How exactly does science deal with a non-empirical transcendence? NDT goes on to talk about what would be nothing more than the yet-to-be-discovered material mechanisms in the chain of a cause-and-effect actualization, as if that were the whole of the issue. The matter of origin is not merely a scientific question, but also a philosophical and theological question. The only one imposing arbitrary boundaries on the expressions of all three avenues of inquiry regarding origin is the materialist. As for what the man in the crowd had in mind regarding the strictly scientific concerns of origin is anyone's guess, including NDT's knee-jerk insinuation of the supposed God in gaps fallacy which didn't necessarily follow from the man in the crowd's question: precisely where have I ever expressed the idea that we know all there is to know about the material states and mechanisms of cosmological realities or placed a limit on what may be known about them? Further, my presentation of OUR understanding, which you atheists keep pretending to be merely MY understanding, of the objectively and universally apparent imperatives of origin is utterly open-ended with regard to the only justifiably known, ontological alternatives: the eternally existent, uncaused cause is either material or sentient or, if you please, a combination thereof, though that be, at the very least, paradoxical for reasons I need not get into here.

 

[G.T.]

I wish there was a better way to tell you you're the one cognitively inept, but I'll spare myself the 8 paragraphs of bloviating meaninglessness in response, especially if you can't think of why the argument from design is inept. Especially because of THAT, you are summarily dismissed. Peace. Gluck in the future with failed arguments.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Try giving an answer for the life we know about. What are the odds that life even started on the Earth? Given the fact that you, erroneously, claim that life was almost wiped out five times since it began on Earth, what are the odds that it could have survived as long as it has? What are the odds that we developed multiple species that rely on two sexes in order to survive when most people can think of more efficient means of reproduction?

I'd love to see this erroneous claim you said I made or else you know....you can eat your hat on that one.

 

[G.T.]

No it proves god is not necessary to possess that knowledge, only my brain.

How?

Keep in mind that you already claimed that your mind is the seat of your knowledge, and that there is a difference between your mind and your brain. One is irrefutable fact, the other is a major question in science.

Pretty easily, because when I interchange the words mind and brain I'm doing so in a flipant manor in hope that someone who wants to be cunty doesn't come along and say ' but but the mind is different from the brain ya knooooo.'

The dickish irrelevance .....miss me with that.


I won't say mind or brain, mmmmkay? I'll say 'the mechanism from which I develop my thoughts.'

That okaaaaaaaaaaay honey?

God damn

 

[G.T.]

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.

Try giving an answer for the life we know about. What are the odds that life even started on the Earth? Given the fact that you, erroneously, claim that life was almost wiped out five times since it began on Earth, what are the odds that it could have survived as long as it has? What are the odds that we developed multiple species that rely on two sexes in order to survive when most people can think of more efficient means of reproduction?

If you were the genius you think you are, you'd know we cannot develop a probability for 'the life we know about' because there would be factors missing, quite obviously to anyone with a brain OR mind.

You cant develop a probability that something occurs without knowing all the instances its occurred over all of the conditions in space time that its occurred in.

I mean........you knew that right?

 

[G.T.]

If you are going to call the universe itself god if it always existed, then you're being lenient with the classical way humans perceive the word 'god.'

You can call it anything you want to, you can assign it any type of name imaginable so to give it the typical religious name given the creator is being a bit disingenuous and I'd stretch that to a bit intellectually dishonest.