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

[G.T.]

I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.

You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.

Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.

If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.

 

[G.T.]

And for the record, I did not offer the deduction you're assigning to me.

You ASKED ME if there's knowledge without a knower, I didn't say "this is my proof of knowledge without god, there is no knowledge without a knower."


So I don't know why you're NOW inserting that, instead of the actual knowledge I presented, which is absolute and is a fact independent of god because of the impossibility of the contrary: I am not all knowing.

That is knowledge and fact with or without god as its basis, the contrary is impossible.

 

[Justin Davis]

MD your #3 is a naked assertion.

The way god is defined does not equate to a logical proof that said defined god exists, and so your #3 is baseless.

"We define god as all knowledge therefore god exists or else knowledge doesnt!"

Well, no. It doesn't work like that. And its QUITE fuggin ridiculous.


Read your #3 over and over and over. Your homework assignment is to tell me why its retarded.

Edit to add...this is regarding your #3 in post 691.

Nonsense.

First. You're obviously refuted right off the bat:

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.​

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.​

I already provided the logical proof for #3. It just hasn't sunk in for you, for as usual you haven't thought it through.

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.
__________________________________

The assertion that God exists, unlike the assertion that God does not exist, is not inherently contradictory. The possibility of God's existence cannot be logically denied. You've already conceded that the assertion of atheism is not logically tenable. In any event, God by definition is all-knowledge or else the thing being defined is not God. You necessarily conceded that it is objectively apparent that #3 is a logically valid assertion, that the universally understood construct of God (or supreme being) is perfect knowledge, and you're very own argument proves that! You just didn't realize what you had actually argued, what you had actually proved logically, until I showed you.

Oh, by the way, your rational-agnostic assertion is invalid. You unwittingly asserted it, and rightly so, against atheism on the grounds of logic, but one cannot validly assert it against theism on the grounds of logic. Once again, logic dictates that God's existence cannot be denied without proof. The very act of asserting agnosticism concedes that fact of logic. I don't know if God exists means I don't know if God exists. It doesn't mean that the understanding of the possibly of God's existence is irrational. The universe is the evidence for God's existence, and your "nothingness objection" is not justifiable knowledge about anything.

You have been refuted on each one of these points individually and now in summary. It's not my problem that you are either not bright enough to understand the reality of it or not honest enough to admit it.

You're dismissed.

You can't fix stupid or dishonest.

 

[Justin Davis]

I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.

You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.

Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.

If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.

I have read this thread with much interest. You have conceded everyone of the points. All of you atheists have. Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying. Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists. It's sick, but it's also hilarious. I get it now more than ever after that demonstration. The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal. These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads. Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered. You're smart enough to see this. Why are you intentionally fooling yourself? What are you afraid of? What is is. That's nothing to be afraid of.

 

[G.T.]

I'm afraid of people who are stupid enough to assign explanations to the yet to be explained and they rationalize it in such a way that they consider it proof whereas proof is the farthest thing from being available in terms of the origins of 'everything,' and fuck, we don't even know if there WAS an origin. But, you know, we're here....so, like.....god, bro.


No.

 

[Hollie]

I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.

You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.

Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.

If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.

I have read this thread with much interest. You have conceded everyone of the points. All of you atheists have. Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying. Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists. It's sick, but it's also hilarious. I get it now more than ever after that demonstration. The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal. These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads. Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered. You're smart enough to see this. Why are you intentionally fooling yourself? What are you afraid of? What is is. That's nothing to be afraid of.

Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.

 

[emilynghiem]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

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

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

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

If you equate God with forces of Life or Nature,
Universal laws, collective truth,
then you can prove that all people in some expression
of this abstract concept or energy.

The problem is we don't all agree that we are talking
about the same thing, that we attribute the same qualities
or interpret it the same, and we don't all forgive each other
for differences.

As long as we can forgive differences, we can resolve conflicts
even where our beliefs are different and don't need to change.

The issue is not so much whether or not God exists,
because this can never be proven or disproven but relies on faith.

What we can demonstrate is the ability to reach a consensus
on our language and terms for the concepts and principles in life
including ones that are expressed using God Jesus and other terms from religion.
All these same concepts can be expressed using secular terms
and explanations, and do not need to rely on the religious terminology
as long as we are talking about the same concepts.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.

You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.

Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.

If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.

I have read this thread with much interest. You have conceded everyone of the points. All of you atheists have. Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying. Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists. It's sick, but it's also hilarious. I get it now more than ever after that demonstration. The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal. These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads. Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered. You're smart enough to see this. Why are you intentionally fooling yourself? What are you afraid of? What is is. That's nothing to be afraid of.

Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.

Hi Hollie:
Actually, Francis MacNutt who teaches and trains people in spiritual healing
has found that the doctors he worked with were more open to scientific studies
and proof of the process than religious followers who were OBSTRUCTING the process of
sharing this knowledge.

The spiritual knowledge has survived DESPITE the abuses and corruption of
religious churches that have censored and denied this knowledge to others.

If you bothered to research the methods of spiritual healing practiced
and taught effectively by well reputed sources (some are listed at freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
you would see that science and medicine backs up what is taught in religion.

Because religious fundamentalists fear that people will worship and depend on science,
many of them have OPPOSED studying and proving these methods work medically.

It scares them to think you don't have to
treat natural healing energy and processes as "theological or faith based"
to prove these same things work naturally in keeping with science!

It's still the same process, and no, it does not just exist because of Christian fundamentalism
but this knowledge has been suppressed because of the religious extremism rejecting science.

All the same things taught in Christianity can be proved and demonstrated
using scientific methods of research and documenting stats and studies.

There is no conflict as you imagine, the same way that
Christian Fundamentalists fear the worship of science.

They have not pushed but have impeded the process of spiritual healing
and understanding the process, due to the same fear and unforgiveness
that makes you reject anything "theological" the same way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your pointless argument that atheism is a religion with the attendant association to beliefs in magic and supernatural gods.

Do you typically forget what you have posted even hours earlier?

Are you arguing with the voices n your head again?

FYI, I never posted anything like you just claimed. Unlike you, I have a memory that is based in reality, not delusion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm going to make a sign that says US soldiers are cock suckers and are going to burn in hell for serving in Iraq and I'm going to march where a lot of Marines hang out. Will they lay their hands on me? That's what these asshole theists are doing to gay people. They're saying stuff that is very offensive to gays. They get away with it because our society is anti gay. Free speech?

I'm going to go to Detroit and have a sign that says black people are uncivilized. Or I'm going to send a black into KKK territory and have him carry a sign that says white women are easy sluts.

Chances are those marines or racists will act the same way that gay guy did.

Tough fucking shit.

 

[Foxfyre]

MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.

 

[ninja007]

atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence."

Believers "on the other hand don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves since they have simply have faith instead. "

Meaning atheists and believers have no evidence for their choice to believe or not.

Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith. Always. You're both believers.

Incorrect. Life is evidence, nature is evidence, etc...

 

[JakeStarkey]

not empirically in the sense you suggest, but you can try to prove it

let's see you replicate it from the 'beginning'

 

[PratchettFan]

MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.

A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:

All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.

This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.

 

[PratchettFan]

atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence."

Believers "on the other hand don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves since they have simply have faith instead. "

Meaning atheists and believers have no evidence for their choice to believe or not.

Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith. Always. You're both believers.

Incorrect. Life is evidence, nature is evidence, etc...

How is it evidence?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MDR, I just figured out what the problem is. None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.

A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:

All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.

This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.

Close-mindedness, conceptual and linguistic illiteracy, and rank intellectual dishonesty = garbage out.

False analogy. The major premise in the above is manifestly false. The major premise of the transcendental argument is neither inherently contradictory or demonstrably false, and you, Sir, don't grasp that what you're ultimately asserting with your informal allegation of begging the question—as you disregard the fact that the inability of the counter assertions to falsify the major premise constitutes the latter's objectively independent, rational ground—is an assault on the validity of the very exigencies of the classical laws of logic you now think to assert, albeit, incorrectly, against the transcendental argument's major premise: a point I will drive home momentarily with the argument's subsequent defense of these exigencies, which reveal that the atheist is spouting things that are demonstrably absurd once again!

Hint: there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely absurd.

Moreover, you're dismissed. You previously claimed that the exigencies of the laws of logic do not constitute objective evidence or justifiable knowledge of any kind. What did you call the unabridged and conceptually necessary essence of the adjectival term denoting object? Answer: Bullshit! Well, as it turns out, you do in fact comprehend the essence of the adjectival term denoting object after all. As, after all, that's one of the items in the forefront among the universally apprehended absolutes extrapolated from the exercise of focusing the laws of logic on the problems of existence and origin. You do recognize the fact that the exigencies of the laws of logic, the subsequent axioms, postulates and theorems of intuition, do constitute objective evidence. But if you're still pretending that the full connotations of objectively do not exist after necessarily conceding that they do, take your bullshit somewhere else.

Is this your concession that you have been artlessly walking around all your life with a definition of objectively derived from an abridged dictionary or not?

That is, of course, a rhetorical question as you've already, unwittingly, pulled down your own pants in front of God and everybody by trying to foist a manifestly false, mentally deficient analogy on us in the first place. Dude!

 

[G.T.]

The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.

That's what I keep saying 'bloviation' for, because that's all that that is.

 

[G.T.]

Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.

The contrary is impossible.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

not empirically in the sense you suggest, but you can try to prove it

let's see you replicate it from the 'beginning'

Substantive objective evidence, Mr. Materialist, is not limited to empirical phenomena. Notwithstanding, the existence of the universe incontrovertibly is the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence. Shut the hell up! Atheism cannot be rationally asserted, for a sentient origin of the universe cannot be rationally ruled out without proof. You're illegitimate and unwitting superimposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is NOT scientifically falsifiable, begs the question in fact unlike the rationally unjustifiable drool alleged about the major premise of the transcendental argument.

And the atheist necessarily concedes that the universe incontrovertibly is the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe in his pinhead. DUH! Only idiots and liars go on spouting this rank stupidity after necessarily conceding the obvious.

 

[G.T.]

You're not conceding that there is a god when you deny that there is a god, sorry sye ten bruggencate.