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

[G.T.]

The cosmological singularity isn't proven to have an origin, dude.

The concept of proof/evidence, in and of itself, another thing you don't understand, or, for that matter, whatever the ultimate origin of ANYTHING is, is not relevant, dummy. Existence entails origin. Period. End of thought. I will not entertain another obtuse post from you on this.

No, existence doesn't entail that. Existence may have been ETERNAL.

It is speculation - even scientifically - that the singularity was or was not eternal.

You're lazy as fuck with how lax you are in terms of a demand for solid answers. You play fast and loose, but anyone who is not agnostic is experiencing greater levels of being gullible than an agnostic so, you're not alone.

 

[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.

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.

We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism. But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument. But a valid syllogistic argument? Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.

But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.

Now if we go with the opening statement that:

Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.

. . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that? Or what is your argument for that?

Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?

But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:

Knowledge exists.

Therefore there is a God.

Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true. It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it. If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid. It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.

 

[G.T.]

The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.

So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.

We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism. But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument. But a valid syllogistic argument? Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.

But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.

Now if we go with the opening statement that:

Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.

. . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that? Or what is your argument for that?

Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?

But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:

Knowledge exists.

Therefore there is a God.

You're not being honest. Sorry, but you're pressing an agenda, not an honest attempt at argument.

From the top, then. You posted:

Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.

Without appending ".... because I say so" to your statement, there is absolutely no reason to accept the above as true.



Knowledge exists.

Pretty much stating the obvious. There's nothing to connect the attainment of knowledge to your gods or anyone else's gods.


Therefore there is a God.

Wha.... wha.... wait, what? What happened to the "creator" in your opening sentence? The sentence identified the inclusive "or" term, "creator or God". Was the creator fired or just dropped because he got in the way?

I'm thinking your "syllogism" was rigged from the start to achieve a predetermined conclusion.

 

[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.

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.

From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.

Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time. But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here. A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.

The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means ex nihilo creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (post #99). Ex nihilo creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of argumentum ad absurdum regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.

Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism. With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it. Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it. This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.

From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.

Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time. But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here. A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.

The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means ex nihilo creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (post #99). Ex nihilo creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of argumentum ad absurdum regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.

Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism. With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it. Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it. This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.

Ah, I see. We had to endure your sloppy pontificating when you could have saved us from the motion sickness induced nausea of your pointless rattling with a simple "the gawds did it... because I say so!"

 

[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.

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.

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.

We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism. But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument. But a valid syllogistic argument? Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.

But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.

Now if we go with the opening statement that:

Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.

. . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that? Or what is your argument for that?

Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?

But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:

Knowledge exists.

Therefore there is a God.

Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true. It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it. If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid. It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.

No. What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.

 

[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.

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.

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.

From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.

Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time. But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here. A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.

The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means ex nihilo creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (post #99). Ex nihilo creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of argumentum ad absurdum regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.

Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism. With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it. Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it. This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.

It doesn't have to be well defined. It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.

Going back to my original wording:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.

The universe exists
.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

We don't have to describe or define the something. We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something. What that something is would be a different discussion.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.

So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.

Again, the mundane as if it were profound!

And once again, Mr. Slogan Think of the premeditated circumvention of those things that inconveniently render your guff moot, we already covered that. No more digressions. Until you can explain to me how something could come from nothing, you're not packing anything remotely like a rationally justifiable objection to stop (*sound of screeching wheels and a crash*) the analysis of the rationally justifiable knowledge pertaining to the issue of origin. Besides, you guys have already asserted arguments presupposing the justifiable knowledge that is reasonably pertinent, demonstrating that you understand that the spaghetti monsters of nothingness, while curious, though not really, are of no practical significance. Dead end.

So that will be the last time I entertain that silliness. This along with your silliness regarding the existence-origin dichotomy: File 13.

By the way, why don't you define existence so that we may all see just how conveniently closed-minded your thinking is.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.

You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.

Caveat. He has a valid point in general. His charge, however, that some "step is being skipped", i.e., that the major premise in the teleological argument is merely being declared to be true is patently false. The universally apparent imperatives of human intuition prove his claim to be patently false. His purely academic objection does not hold. And I will drive home that point momentarily with regard to what he's ultimately implying in this case utterly unawares.

Can you spell "pompous blowhard who tries to make a point but trips over his own inability to string words into meaningful sentences"?

H - o - l - l - i - e.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree you can do that, but the conclusion will be true of itself, not established by a syllogism. If the premise is false, then the conclusion must be proven in another manner. In this case, we are faced with a premise which we are to take as self-evident and without question. The conclusion is to be taken as true based upon an unsupported premise. If the premise is not demonstrated, then any conclusion derived from it must be proven independent of the premise.

Now you are stepping outside the realm of logic, which is a pretty useless field outside of philosophy and mathematical proofs. Even in math it is limited in what you can accomplish using logic because, at this point in time, we are not capable of devising a system that controls the universe.

 

[G.T.]

MD, that's the glory of not merely accepting something that isnt currently falsifiable without further proof.

I don't HAVE TO explain how something could come from nothing - to NOT submit as absolute knowledge that something CANT, because WE DONT KNOW.

Therein (the inability to admit that we cannot know) lies the bedrock of your bloviation.

Not to mention, the other possibility that THERE WAS NEVER NOTHING.

You continue to display as I had already gathered - your rationale is remedial.

 

[G.T.]

EXISTENCE: ANYthing that EVER or ALWAYS was.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is that evidence of God? Connect the two things.

I am saying that it is evidence, and that people can interpret that evidence in different ways. The same thing happens in forensics. despite the myth you see in movies that the evidence can only mean one thing. If the police find a fingerprint on a cup at a crime scene they will automatically assume that the evidence proves that the owner of that finger was at the crime scene. In reality, there are dozens of possibilities about how that cup came to be there, which is why you cannot look at a single piece of evidence and draw a valid conclusion about something.

There is a lot of evidence out there, and life is only one piece of data. Look at everything available before you form an opinion, and always be ready to change your opinion when new evidence comes in. Dismissing one piece of evidence, and then doing the same thing with another piece, simply because no single bit of data confirms the existence of something you don't understand, is the sign of a closed mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, existence doesn't entail that. Existence may have been ETERNAL.

I am pretty sure that science says the universe had a beginning.

Not that facts like that matter to you.

It is speculation - even scientifically - that the singularity was or was not eternal.

If the singularity was eternal, without beginning or end, we wouldn't be here discussing it, would we? I guess that makes you wrong.

You're lazy as fuck with how lax you are in terms of a demand for solid answers. You play fast and loose, but anyone who is not agnostic is experiencing greater levels of being gullible than an agnostic so, you're not alone.

Yet you are the one claiming that you have all the answers.

 

[Hollie]

That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.

You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.

Caveat. He has a valid point in general. His charge, however, that some "step is being skipped", i.e., that the major premise in the teleological argument is merely being declared to be true is patently false. The universally apparent imperatives of human intuition prove his claim to be patently false. His purely academic objection does not hold. And I will drive home that point momentarily with regard to what he's ultimately implying in this case utterly unawares.

Can you spell "pompous blowhard who tries to make a point but trips over his own inability to string words into meaningful sentences"?

H - o - l - l - i - e.

I didn't expect you would quibble over your pompous bluster.

 

[G.T.]

Hey quantum, you can address my posts all along but uh...I dont give a fuck.

You're irrelevant, to me. Call that a concession of defeat or whatever boosts your ego - fact is- you come in quibbling about minutia like a little priss. No thanks.

Science has not established that there was once 'nothing,' was my point. You, again, babble in your contrarian way speaking past people instead of with people. You don't have discussions, you attempt to hold lectures. You're undesirable to converse with. And if you feel the same of me? GOOD.

BUZZ THE FUCK OFF, THEN.

 

[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.

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.

From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.

Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time. But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here. A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.

The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means ex nihilo creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (post #99). Ex nihilo creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of argumentum ad absurdum regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.

Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism. With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it. Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it. This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.

It doesn't have to be well defined. It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.

Going back to my original wording:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.

The universe exists
.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

We don't have to describe or define the something. We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something. What that something is would be a different discussion.

*sigh*

It's the terms that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say: "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something." Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert ex nihilo creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations. Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the something does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges. All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion. After all, I intend to defend it. Foundation. Copy and paste.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true. It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it. If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid. It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.

What supportive evidence have you offered for your claim that anyone making a statement has to support it?

The thing is, if I don't like something you said, the way I respond is to challenge your statement in an attempt to disprove your position. Sitting back and demanding that you prove you have to prove everything you say would just make me look even sillier and lazier than the image I cultivate. It is also a lot more work than I want to get involved in.

Not to mention that, in syllogism, the premises are assumed to be true, and the only option you really have if you disagree with them is to challenge them.

 

[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.

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.

Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.

From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.

Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time. But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here. A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.

The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means ex nihilo creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (post #99). Ex nihilo creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of argumentum ad absurdum regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.

Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism. With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it. Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it. This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.

It doesn't have to be well defined. It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.

Going back to my original wording:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.

The universe exists
.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)

We don't have to describe or define the something. We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something. What that something is would be a different discussion.

*sigh*

It's the terms that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say: "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something." Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert ex nihilo creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations. Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the something does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges. All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion. After all, I intend to defend it. Foundation. Copy and paste.

Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.