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

[BreezeWood]

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?

flora has no "physiological brain" yet has both a mind and free will.

does your mind persist after the death of the brain?

if it reaches the Sabbath or intended Spiritual completion for Admission to the OuterWorld of the Everlasting.

.

 

[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.

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

Take the matter up with your atheistic fellow travelers, Adorable, albeit, with those who are much smarter than you, given that it's the implications of the teleological argument's central thrust that's got the majority of them opting for the weak anthropic principle in the face of the universes' paradoxical juxtaposition of a fine-tuning for life and a hostility for life. And the prospects for an abiogentic composition of life on Earth without the intervention of Providence are especially . . . um . . . challenging at best and at worst a pipedream. They agree with me, not you, insofar as the arguably scientific factor of relevance is concerned. Now a direct address to you using the term Dumbass comes to mind as the proper way to end that last sentence. But given what you think passes for a refutation of my observations, that would be redundant.

 

[G.T.]

Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I think pantheism is rank stupidity. In truth, it's a distinction that would make no difference to us, a thing that's essentially atheism in all but semantics . . . except, I suppose, in the case of pantheists who infer some form of panpsychism or some form of pandeism.

 

[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.

Take the matter up with your atheistic fellow travelers, Adorable, albeit, with those who are much smarter than you, given that it's the implications of the teleological argument's central thrust that's got the majority of them opting for the weak anthropic principle in the face of the universes' paradoxical juxtaposition of a fine-tuning for life and a hostility for life. And the prospects for an abiogentic composition of life on Earth without the intervention of Providence are especially . . . um . . . challenging at best and at worst a pipedream. They agree with me, not you, insofar as the arguably scientific factor of relevance is concerned. Now a direct address to you using the term Dumbass comes to mind as the proper way to end that last sentence. But given what you think passes for a refutation of my observations, that would be redundant.

It's truly amazing that your stuttering and mumbling is a hoped-for attempt to mask your utter incompetence. The errors with every confused, incohent attempt at sentence structure you stumble over is an embarassment.

To begin with, the actual debates concerning the failure and incompetence of the teleological argument have been exhaustively aired in public. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently fundamentalist hacks such as yourself misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate separating fundamentalist christians vs. the relevant science community. The debates have never been in serious consideration of the truly pointless teleological argument, at least not by those of science. The teleological argument is promoted exclusively by fundie zealots. Such promotionn of superstitious nonsense has only occurred outside the scientific community in the philosophical (not scientific) debates between scientists and fundie hacks. And what is most fascinating is that outside of fundie christian creationist hacks, the teleological "argument" is simply dismissed as crank claims made by those with a fundamentalist agenda to press.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I think pantheism is rank stupidity. In truth, it's a distinction that would make no difference to us, a thing that's essentially atheism in all but semantics . . . except, I suppose, in the case of pantheists who infer some form of panpsychism or some form of pandeism.

How strange that a fundie zealot would identify pantheism as rank stupidity, when the same fundie crank would presume that his promotion of fear and superstition, otherwise labeled as the teleological argument is anything less than a cartoonish joke.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Science is always irrelevant to religious fanatics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Yet some people actually have because, unlike you, they understand that the question I asked is not specific, which means it is answerable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Who the fuck are you talking to now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.

Have you read Hollie's posts? She accuses everyone who disagrees with her a fundie because she thinks that shows she is smarter than they are.

Never mind, I se you agreed one of her posts where she used that tactic, what else can a zealot do but accuse other people of being crazy for knowing more than they do?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.

I'm getting' a wet, snot-stained hanky feelin' here.

Right. First all theists are superstitious dumbasses who believe what they believe out of naiveté or blind faith, culturally conditioned robots in the slimely grips of spaghetti monsters, opines the ever-condescending atheist, full of sneer and superiority. The teleological argument is so silly it need not even be discussed. Only dumbasses would consider it's implications to be important. Right? The likes of you and Hollie are so smmaaaaaart. Well, real scientists of the atheistic persuasion are discussing its implications and the weak anthropic principle is their default position. The potentiality of the multiverse came just in time. It's your arrogance that has blinded you from the decades-old reality of the reemergence of the argument's influence on the recognition of the implications of life in a hostile cosmos.

Oops. So suddenly when a theist pulls the atheist’s pants down around his ankles and shoves his nose in his own sneering excrement, the atheist projects his psychology on the theist.

Is that your default position or did you have a real argument to make? All this personal bullshit from you and Hollie is tiresome? Is that what turns you on? Pathetic.

 

[G.T.]

The argument from design is pathetic.

Truly. Fucking. Pathetic.

But some humans have a larger issue than others in wrapping their heads around the actual age of the universe, its a bit higher than remedial to fathom and so its understandable that some dunces out there think that human life as is came about by some magical design and not billions of years of FAILURE of said design if it were designed.


Awww shucks, homer.







Also - gt = agnostic. The only intellectually honest and intelligent conclusion given current human limitations. Anything else is hubris.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The argument from design is pathetic.

Truly. Fucking. Pathetic.

But some humans have a larger issue than others in wrapping their heads around the actual age of the universe, its a bit higher than remedial to fathom and so its understandable that some dunces out there think that human life as is came about by some magical design and not billions of years of FAILURE of said design if it were designed.


Awww shucks, homer.







Also - gt = agnostic. The only intellectually honest and intelligent conclusion given current human limitations. Anything else is hubris.

Behold the atheist's default position when stripped of his pretensions of intellectual superiority: more insult, denial, slogans, clichés. Magical baby talk: maybe the realities squashing his shallow reckoning of things will go away. But no argument. Back to sneer. Dude, the difference between you and me is that I know I'm nothing more than a mediocre student trying to decipher a staggeringly complex textbook. I didn't write it. I know next to nothing about the obvious. I've barely scratched the surface of that.

_______________________________

By the way, in addition to the idea that this is all going on independently of God, which I forgot about, is this right?

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.​

 

[G.T.]

Its pretty simple. You don't need to ask a third time for me to clarify, you can go back and see my answer the other two times you asked me to clarify.

All the other shit you say is meaningless. It just is, it doesn't matter how smart you think that I think that I am, the shit you're peddling is still meaningless psychobabble.

Agnosticism is the only rational answer given current human knowledge of origins.

Past that, its hubris.

All of your posts boil down to hubris.

Agnosticism shits on hubris.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Its pretty simple. You don't need to ask a third time for me to clarify, you can go back and see my answer the other two times you asked me to clarify.

All the other shit you say is meaningless. It just is, it doesn't matter how smart you think that I think that I am, the shit you're peddling is still meaningless psychobabble.

Agnosticism is the only rational answer given current human knowledge of origins.

Past that, its hubris.

All of your posts boil down to hubris.

Agnosticism shits on hubris.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? By the way, I don't think you're stupid. I believe you saw your error. I think you're arrogant.

You thought you were going to defeat the argument as casually as a dog licks its genitals. You were so very proud, so very sure, of your of masterful deconstruction of it when all along the only thing that was so very clear is that you had dismissed something by sheer sheep think, because that's what others had told you to believe. Only dumbasses could not see that it had no independent means of being affirmed, right? Kant was a dumbass, right? You've never really considered the argument on its own terms personally. What I told you about it couldn't possibly be true, isn't that right?

So tells us the truth about why you dropped out of the discussion: when did it dawn on you that the only thing you had shown is that facts could exist without being know by finite minds? In other words, when did it occur to you that you had not proven, and could not prove, that facts could exist without an omniscient mind? In fact, for an omniscient mind there would be no fact-knowledge dichotomy would there? All facts are known. All is pure knowledge. That apprehension is an axiomatic fact of logic.

1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.

Now this presuppositional objection, meant to critique the supposedly unsupported major premise of the transcendental, meant to show that the transcendental begs the question, is obviously defective, and both the major premise and the conclusion can readily be shown by simple logic to be untenable. The argument is inherently contradictory, self-negating. The same thing cannot be said about or done to the real argument.

 

[G.T.]

Did you really think facts can't exist without an omniscient mind?


Really?



Really?

 

[Hollie]

Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.

Have you read Hollie's posts? She accuses everyone who disagrees with her a fundie because she thinks that shows she is smarter than they are.

Never mind, I se you agreed one of her posts where she used that tactic, what else can a zealot do but accuse other people of being crazy for knowing more than they do?

To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.

Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?

But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.

 

[Hollie]

Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.

I'm getting' a wet, snot-stained hanky feelin' here.

Right. First all theists are superstitious dumbasses who believe what they believe out of naiveté or blind faith, culturally conditioned robots in the slimely grips of spaghetti monsters, opines the ever-condescending atheist, full of sneer and superiority. The teleological argument is so silly it need not even be discussed. Only dumbasses would consider it's implications to be important. Right? The likes of you and Hollie are so smmaaaaaart. Well, real scientists of the atheistic persuasion are discussing its implications and the weak anthropic principle is their default position. The potentiality of the multiverse came just in time. It's your arrogance that has blinded you from the decades-old reality of the reemergence of the argument's influence on the recognition of the implications of life in a hostile cosmos.

Oops. So suddenly when a theist pulls the atheist’s pants down around his ankles and shoves his nose in his own sneering excrement, the atheist projects his psychology on the theist.

Is that your default position or did you have a real argument to make? All this personal bullshit from you and Hollie is tiresome? Is that what turns you on? Pathetic.

You poor, dear. You're just incensed that despite all your bloviating and pompous stuttering and mumbling, you have failed to make a single, supportable argument in favor of your preference for magic and supernaturalism vs. a rational, naturalistic cause for existence.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

They're talking about the transcendental argument, not the teleological argument, and the thoughts you're attacking are G.T.'s. Oh, just to let you know, your criticism of the teleological argument is a straw man. The "empirical" arguments for God's existence take current science into account. I can point you in the right direction if you want.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Did you see that theist yesterday chopped that woman's head off because she wouldn't convert?

What does an atheist do if he or she disagrees with you? We certainly don't get violent about it.

So theists can talk all day about Pol Pot, Lenin & Hitler. What we see today is that the concept of god in your head doesn't necessarily make you a good person. I have the position that religion is bad for us or at least I don't think it is automatically a good thing.

I see some very good religious people and they believe in god, and if every theist were like these people, I wouldn't have a beef with religion or "religious people". Of course I don't include those people when I diss religion. I don't agree with them but that doesn't matter with them ior me.

Notice theists say they feel sorry for us and we feel the same way about them. They are naive, gullible, innocent, stupid, not so brite. It would be cute if it weren't so sad. LOL.