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

[Justin Davis]

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.

Help me out with something. I just started reading Spinoza. I'm not clear on whether or not his god is self-aware.

 

[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 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.

You didn't read the posts.

 

[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.

You didn't read the posts.

I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

From where I'm standing, it's looks like you and the moderator in that video are "the man in the crowd" and you guys just got your butts handed to you. I'm starting to think that most of the atheists on this forum call everything they don't understand or don't like, things that blow their insults up, are meaningless. Must be nice to be lazy all the time. You insult. You're shown to be wrong. You insult. That seems to be your routine.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

You didn't read the posts.

I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.

Even G.T. knows you're lying.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Heaven in a hand basket! He's talking about the self-evident, hypothetical possibilities without bias. It doesn't indicate anything about his personal beliefs. You know, if you guys didn't waste so much time on irrelevancies you might learn something.

 

[Justin Davis]

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

That's the irony? The only people who came on to this thread beating their chests about how smart they are and how stupid theists are are people like you. I'm stupid. Q.W. is stupid. Foxfyre is stupid. M.D.R. is stupid. Everybody's stupid who doesn't agree with you, but the funny thing is that everybody's stupid that doesn't agree with the atheist seems to be just about all the argument you guys make. I mean some of you really smart people try to make arguments and then you're little arguments get blown up by the bigger arguments of the stupid people. And then you call their arguments stupid.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You didn't read the posts.

I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.

Even G.T. knows you're lying.

Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

You didn't read the posts.

I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.

Even G.T. knows you're lying.

Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.

What argument are you talking about? Foxfrye's argument?

 

[Hollie]

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.

You didn't read the posts.

I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.

Even G.T. knows you're lying.

Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.

What argument are you talking about? Foxfrye's argument?

Pick one for us.

 

[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.

Help me out with something. I just started reading Spinoza. I'm not clear on whether or not his god is self-aware.

Spinoza is really REALLY tedious reading. He really doesn't deal in self awareness of God though and I will say that such was probably irrelevant for both him and Einstein who came to many of the same conclusions. For both it was pure reason and logic that allowed them to see a process, method, symmetry, logic in the universe that both considered mathematically improbable as being by pure accident or chance. So for them, they saw the possibility/probability of some kind of cosmic intelligence permeating all and guiding the process.

Neither subscribed to a personal God who contemplates each of us individually and is involved with our lives and/or destinies. So in that sense, I would conclude that neither thought of a God who was self-aware or involved in any way with our sense of right/wrong/good/bad/virtue/evil as we think of that in JudeoChristian concepts.

 

[Justin Davis]

You didn't read the posts.

I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.

Even G.T. knows you're lying.

Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.

What argument are you talking about? Foxfrye's argument?

Pick one for us.

When you say "testable" is that supposed to mean you care about science? I don't believe you. I see that M.D.R. showed you that your understanding of the teleological argument was unscientific and dated, and you just blew that off with more insults followed up with hypocritical, cry-baby sniffles. Now I know why he slapped you down the way he did. Obviously you're a known quantity. All you've done on this thread from the beginning is lie and insult. Q.W. is right, you're a religious zombie. You're behavior in the face of scholarly arguments and demonstrations by people like Q.W., Foxfyre and M.D.R. has been disgraceful.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Help me out with something. I just started reading Spinoza. I'm not clear on whether or not his god is self-aware.

Spinoza is really REALLY tedious reading. He really doesn't deal in self awareness of God though and I will say that such was probably irrelevant for both him and Einstein who came to many of the same conclusions. For both it was pure reason and logic that allowed them to see a process, method, symmetry, logic in the universe that both considered mathematically improbable as being by pure accident or chance. So for them, they saw the possibility/probability of some kind of cosmic intelligence permeating all and guiding the process.

Neither subscribed to a personal God who contemplates each of us individually and is involved with our lives and/or destinies. So in that sense, I would conclude that neither thought of a God who was self-aware or involved in any way with our sense of right/wrong/good/bad/virtue/evil as we think of that in JudeoChristian concepts.

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I was reading him right. That's pretty much what I'm getting.

 

[Hollie]

I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.

Even G.T. knows you're lying.

Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.

What argument are you talking about? Foxfrye's argument?

Pick one for us.

When you say "testable" is that supposed to mean you care about science? I don't believe you. I see that M.D.R. showed you that your understanding of the teleological argument was unscientific and dated, and you just blew that off with more insults followed up with hypocritical, cry-baby sniffles. Now I know why he slapped you down the way he did. Obviously you're a known quantity. All you've done on this thread from the beginning is lie and insult. Q.W. is right, you're a religious zombie. You're behavior in the face of scholarly arguments and demonstrations by people like Q.W., Foxfyre and M.D.R. has been disgraceful.

You're confused about the failure of the teleological argument as pointless and irrelevant. If you scroll back a few pages, you will see that I gave the pompous fundie Rawlings a schooling in just how pointless the teleological actually is. You will also notice he made no attempt to refute it. That was a wise choice as the teleological argument, being nothing more than manipulating the standards of sound reasoning, is simply a way religious zealots manufacture an argument that supports their predefined conclusions.

 

[Justin Davis]

Even G.T. knows you're lying.

Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.

What argument are you talking about? Foxfrye's argument?

Pick one for us.

When you say "testable" is that supposed to mean you care about science? I don't believe you. I see that M.D.R. showed you that your understanding of the teleological argument was unscientific and dated, and you just blew that off with more insults followed up with hypocritical, cry-baby sniffles. Now I know why he slapped you down the way he did. Obviously you're a known quantity. All you've done on this thread from the beginning is lie and insult. Q.W. is right, you're a religious zombie. You're behavior in the face of scholarly arguments and demonstrations by people like Q.W., Foxfyre and M.D.R. has been disgraceful.

You're confused about the failure of the teleological argument as pointless and irrelevant. If you scroll back a few pages, you will see that I gave the pompous fundie Rawlings a schooling in just how pointless the teleological actually is. You will also notice he made no attempt to refute it. That was a wise choice as the teleological argument, being nothing more than manipulating the standards of sound reasoning, is simply a way religious zealots manufacture an argument that supports their predefined conclusions.

I'm confused? I noticed that he gave you links to posts in which he had already addressed your kind of purely subjective argument. All you did was attack the man. So it appears that you didn't read his scholarly posts summarizing the meaning of the argument and our current scientific understanding. Like PratchettFan who doesn't know the full connotations of "objectivity," I think you need to get yourself an unabridged dictionary and learn the difference between the word "pompous" and "scholarly." You attacked the man even before he gave you those links, and he slapped you down along with those links. That's not attacking the man. That's an argument with a well-deserved kick in the butt. Now you're attacking the argument in the same fashion. The argument is stupid, because. . . . See your problem is that there's never any real becauses behind your claims. Real arguments have becauses in them, and a real because would explain why such and such is so. We have no evidence that you even understand what he's telling you. See, I just made a real argument with a real because in it.

 

[Hollie]

Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.

What argument are you talking about? Foxfrye's argument?

Pick one for us.

When you say "testable" is that supposed to mean you care about science? I don't believe you. I see that M.D.R. showed you that your understanding of the teleological argument was unscientific and dated, and you just blew that off with more insults followed up with hypocritical, cry-baby sniffles. Now I know why he slapped you down the way he did. Obviously you're a known quantity. All you've done on this thread from the beginning is lie and insult. Q.W. is right, you're a religious zombie. You're behavior in the face of scholarly arguments and demonstrations by people like Q.W., Foxfyre and M.D.R. has been disgraceful.

You're confused about the failure of the teleological argument as pointless and irrelevant. If you scroll back a few pages, you will see that I gave the pompous fundie Rawlings a schooling in just how pointless the teleological actually is. You will also notice he made no attempt to refute it. That was a wise choice as the teleological argument, being nothing more than manipulating the standards of sound reasoning, is simply a way religious zealots manufacture an argument that supports their predefined conclusions.

I'm confused? I noticed that he gave you links to posts in which he had already addressed your kind of purely subjective argument. All you did was attack the man. So it appears that you didn't read his scholarly posts summarizing the meaning of the argument and our current scientific understanding. Like PratchettFan who doesn't know the full connotations of "objectivity," I think you need to get yourself an unabridged dictionary and learn the difference between the word "pompous" and "scholarly." You attacked the man even before he gave you those links, and he slapped you down along with those links. That's not attacking the man. That's an argument with a well-deserved kick in the butt. Now you're attacking the argument in the same fashion. The argument is stupid, because. . . . See your problem is that there's never any real becauses behind your claims. Real arguments have becauses in them, and a real because would explain why such and such is so. We have no evidence that you even understand what he's telling you. See, I just made a real argument with a real because in it.

You made no argument. Neither did the other fundie. You were both just whining like petulant children.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you ignore evidence that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.

Want to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Never?

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[Hollie]

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.

I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.

Want to try again?

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.

What arguments have I made for either magic or super naturalism?