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

[Justin Davis]

MD: 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.

...

... to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe

there is not a necesary reason to believe the "sentient Creator" of Life is the same as the creation of the Universe.

.

That's your personal belief. Q.W. and M.D.R. are not telling you that you have to believe God exists. I don't even know what Q.W.'s belief is. I think he might believe in panspermia, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he believes in God. And it looks like M.D.R. believes in a semi-personal Deist God like some do or in the Christian God. It's hard to tell because his arguments are naturalistic and rational. But their personal beliefs have nothing to do with what they're saying. They don't even care about personal beliefs. They don't matter. All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide. Where else would we look but at the ideas in our minds or the things outside our minds. Why is this so hard for some? My five-year-old knows this. What is going on of this thread?

 

[Justin Davis]

That is not an answer. The claim is made that it is evidence and it needs to be supported.

Sigh.

Life exists, and that has been proven by science, that makes it evidence. The only real question now is what conclusion we draw from the evidence, not whether or not it actually is evidence. The fact that anyone has to point this out just indicates how pathetic the education system in this country has become.

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

We're the link! You and me, self-aware and other-aware homo sapiens.

 

[Foxfyre]

MD: 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.

...

... to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe

there is not a necesary reason to believe the "sentient Creator" of Life is the same as the creation of the Universe.

.

That's your personal belief. Q.W. and M.D.R. are not telling you that you have to believe God exists. I don't even know what Q.W.'s belief is. I think he might believe in panspermia, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he believes in God. And it looks like M.D.R. believes in a semi-personal Deist God like some do or in the Christian God. It's hard to tell because his arguments are naturalistic and rational. But their personal beliefs have nothing to do with what they're saying. They don't even care about personal beliefs. They don't matter. All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide. Where else would we look but at the ideas in our minds or the things outside our minds. Why is this so hard for some? My five-year-old knows this. What is going on of this thread?

That's it exactly. None of us have been arguing for a religious faith or doctrine or anything paranormal. We have all been arguing a rational argument for something existing before the universe or rational thought existed--that something that, since we don't have another name or description to call it, we refer to as God. And the basis of the argument is, at least for me, that we have no theory or empirical evidence or even ability to reason how something can come from nothing. MDR and QW get more technical than that which is fine, but for me, I prefer to utilize the KISS principle as much as possible.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best. It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy. His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science. I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments. I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new. But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise. He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about. The heart of this argument is the reductio ad absurdum regarding cause. Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin. The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things. I'm just saying.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Something else I forgot to say. I don't want to quibble, and I don't thjnk M.D.R. means to either. The gist I'm getting from his post is to be prepared. Boy howdy! I agree with that. That guy wiped the floor with me because I thought the argument was just a straightforward thing. I totaling misunderstood it. But that was me. I'm sure you appreciate these other things too. Unlike you and M.D.R. I didn't have a handle on them several months ago.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Seriously? You poor thing. How does anything exist if in fact God is the necessary uncaused cause? Dude!

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.


The emboldened in your post, a step or two in logic = God does not exist.

Prove it, not all-knowing one. LOL!

But never mind. Moving on. Everybody else gets it except the mindless atheists, materialists or hard methodological naturalists who can't objectively separate themselves from their personal biases long enough to grasp the obvious.

That's the problem exactly. Thank you. That confirms what I was thinking. The atheist or the materialist has a certain mindset that's divorced from his own concsiousness in some kind of bizarre way. I get that the argument needs a little practice or thought, but its not rocket science. It's as if these guys are not practiced in living in their minds, if you know what I mean, or used to exploring their contents. Take PrachettFan, for example. What is the link? Are there any mirrors in his house? There's no help for that but God's grace. What is going on with these guys? Q.W. mentioned the education system. No doubt about that, but there's something else here too that's very disturbing.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best. It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy. His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science. I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments. I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new. But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise. He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about. The heart of this argument is the reductio ad absurdum regarding cause. Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin. The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things. I'm just saying.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best. It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy. His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science. I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments. I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new. But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise. He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about. The heart of this argument is the reductio ad absurdum regarding cause. Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin. The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things. I'm just saying.

Trust me. Most of the anti-religionist and/or Atheists probably are cutting and pasting their arguments and don't know as much as you do since you are into the studies. If they had to discuss it without being able to look up the terms and copy somebody else's work, most would be at a total loss.

Actually I've had the theological training and can argue the more complex theological arguments if I have to. But for those who have not had the training nor the interest in the heavy duty theological stuff, I usually prefer to keep it at a level all can understand. Alas, however, even that seems to be beyond the ability of some to grasp.

 

[Justin Davis]

knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely

That is a premise without conclusive proof.

So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient? But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you? Do you exist or not? Wait a minute. I got it now. What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down? I'm so confused.

Justin, put down the drink. No one said anyone should worship me. You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you. Yes, you are very confused.

That's what I've always believed but now you're telling me that's not true. Wait a minute. You are telling me that's true now. Why did you have Him in that box a few minutes ago? Man alive, now I'm really confused. What came first, the box or the drink?

That is not what you said, and now you say you didn't? The thread is testimony against your futile attempt to muddy the waters. Yes, you are very confused. Not to worry, I am here to keep you straight.

Well, I realize that's not what you think you said, and that's what's disturbing. The claim of the major premise cannot be refuted but not for the reason you guys seem to believe. It's not just a statement that can't be refuted because the reality it claims can't be absolutely verified one way or another. Nobody's even disputing that with you. Instead, what telling you is that any counter argument against the claim of the major premise will logically make the claim of the major premise true. That is the independent verification for the major premise. It's not logically possible to say that knowledge can exist without God without actually saying that God must exist in order for knowledge to exist. But to get what I mean, you have to think it through. That's why it's so hilarious to here you guys say it's not independently verifiable or that it's not true for some reason or another. Anyone can see this. It's self-evident. Only a person refusing to think his counter argument through would not see that he's actually making the statement true with his argument. You people aren't stupid. There's some weird mind sickness going on here. And the only thing that explains it is that you guys are either pretending to see it or you're not thinking it through because you don't want to see it. It's the craziest I've ever seen, and I've never before been told by an atheist that the universe isn't evidence for God's existence or ask what's the link. I have heard atheist say that they don't think the evidence convincingly indicates God's existence, but until now I've never heard an atheist say that the universe wouldn't be the evidence for God's existence. Do you guys understand the difference between those two beliefs?

 

[emilynghiem]

Don't confuse me. I'm still trying to figure out what came first, the tree or the monkey in the tree.

An example given by a Buddhist monk implies that living things were created together in an interconnected ecosystem.

He pointed out that the eye of a frog is already designed to see the insects and foliage it needs to identify in order to survive, before it is even formed.

So how can this eye develop by "natural selection" and the flora and other insects at the same time?
Clearly their roles and the balance of relations between them is already set up inter-dependently!

Neither one could come before the other. They develop simultaneously.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Justin: The most intellectually honest people whether Theist or Atheist/Nontheist
will agree that because God represents something infinite and/or beyond the scope of man,
then God can neither be proven nor disproven but rely on faith either way.

If you are okay with that, we can stop arguing about who has or hasn't proved this or disproved that.

And just agree to accept some people are biased this way or that way, and share information and ideas that have helped resolve conflicts, learning to communicate objectively despite differences in our beliefs and biases.

Justin, my take on the deal is that a consensus on what people mean by God, Jesus and teh Bible
does NOT depends so much on whether someone is Atheist or Theist; but whether or not people are Forgiving of both groups, one or the other, etc. The degree to which we are able to include each other's views determines the degree to wihch we are able to reach an AGREED understanding regardless of our beliefs.

The issue that makes the difference is Forgiveness or Unforgiveness.

The people who hold grudges against one group or another will not be able to reconcile
to the same degree as people who don't blame people for differences, but work with everyone.

I believe this factor can be proven by example, experience and/or statistics if you want to make a study or proof of it. After this factor is determined to be the key, maybe more people will look into this idea of forming a consensus on religion, and also politics, once we AGREE the key factor in whether conflicts can be resolved is the level of forgiveness or unforgiveness in the parties involved.

So if we were smart, we would consult religious and political leaders with high levels of forgiveness and inclusion to share wisdom and insights on how to resolve conflicts.

And quit letting the people who are out to bash and blame take dominance in public policy and leadership.
Maybe we could clean up religion and politics if we started listening to the people
with experience in resolving issues across diverse groups, beliefs, and even conflicting opposite ideologies!

Thanks, Justin
I wish everyone could be OKAY with the understanding
that God can neither be proven nor disproven without relying on faith.

knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely

That is a premise without conclusive proof.

So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient? But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you? Do you exist or not? Wait a minute. I got it now. What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down? I'm so confused.

Justin, put down the drink. No one said anyone should worship me. You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you. Yes, you are very confused.

That's what I've always believed but now you're telling me that's not true. Wait a minute. You are telling me that's true now. Why did you have Him in that box a few minutes ago? Man alive, now I'm really confused. What came first, the box or the drink?

That is not what you said, and now you say you didn't? The thread is testimony against your futile attempt to muddy the waters. Yes, you are very confused. Not to worry, I am here to keep you straight.

Well, I realize that's not what you think you said, and that's what's disturbing. The claim of the major premise cannot be refuted but not for the reason you guys seem to believe. It's not just a statement that can't be refuted because the reality it claims can't be absolutely verified one way or another. Nobody's even disputing that with you. Instead, what telling you is that any counter argument against the claim of the major premise will logically make the claim of the major premise true. That is the independent verification for the major premise. It's not logically possible to say that knowledge can exist without God without actually saying that God must exist in order for knowledge to exist. But to get what I mean, you have to think it through. That's why it's so hilarious to here you guys say it's not independently verifiable or that it's not true for some reason or another. Anyone can see this. It's self-evident. Only a person refusing to think his counter argument through would not see that he's actually making the statement true with his argument. You people aren't stupid. There's some weird mind sickness going on here. And the only thing that explains it is that you guys are either pretending to see it or you're not thinking it through because you don't want to see it. It's the craziest I've ever seen, and I've never before been told by an atheist that the universe isn't evidence for God's existence or ask what's the link. I have heard atheist say that they don't think the evidence convincingly indicates God's existence, but until now I've never heard an atheist say that the universe wouldn't be the evidence for God's existence. Do you guys understand the difference between those two beliefs?

 

[emilynghiem]

Are you imagining that you have a point to make? What other science beside real science is there? And lastly, no, there are no supportable arguments for the existence of your gods or anyone else's gods.

My point is that since God can neither be proven nor disproven without relying on faith,
we are better off using science to prove Spiritual Healing works by forgiveness,
using the same process taught in Christianity. That can be proven and would do
more good for society.

That's my point.

Hollie if you already know God cannot be proven, then why keep pushing that?
Why not prove something like Spiritual Healing that CAN be documented and demonstrated by
science as natural and bringing all the "miraculous" healing as practiced for centuries,
yet show this is NOT supernatural but follows the laws of science and medicine.

Wouldn't it make more sense to prove that?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Of course it could be true. I am not making any attempt to say that it is not true. I haven't got a clue if it is true or not. In fact, your premise could be completely false and your conclusion true. I am only saying this particular argument is not valid because you have not demonstrated the validity of your premise.

Nor have you challenged or made any effort to expose it as false. Nor do either of us have any means known to humankind that can challenge or support the statement to the satisfaction of anybody else. Some things have to be experienced in order to be known. And some things are left for us to wonder about and continue to search for answers.

No, I haven't. Nor am I going to. It is not my job to prove it false, it is the job of the person making the claim to prove it correct.

Let me tell you about an experience I had. Perhaps 30 years ago I was in a particularly heavy meditation session. I'm not sure how long I had been sitting staring at the floor when suddenly I saw before me a large frog. I recall it vividly. It was bright green with yellow stripes on its eye ridges and down his back. By large, I mean large. About the size of a small dog, perhaps 20 or 25 pounds of frog. It stared at me and I stared back. Then it jumped into my lap and disappeared. Which ended that session abruptly.

You'll have to accept my word no drugs were involved in this experience, but it was a quite real experience for me. Will you accept the conclusion from my experience that God is a frog? Or will you consider that that experience might be the result of an altered brain pattern brought on by the meditation? Or even disbelieve my claim of no drug use? Personal experience can be quite real and I do not discount its importance, but as evidence in this context, it is of little value. You can try to describe it, but you can't share it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.

He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.

And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.

 

[G.T.]

Which means agnosticism is honest and rational.

 

[Freewill]

DNA and the Natural Law

 

[Justin Davis]

Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.

He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.

And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.

None of the persons on this thread who understand how things work are saying they can prove God exists in the way that you mean, including me. All of those persons have already said they cannot prove God's existence in the way that you mean, including me. Now I see why Q.W. keeps asking you guys about the voices in your head. It's hilarious.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Of course it could be true. I am not making any attempt to say that it is not true. I haven't got a clue if it is true or not. In fact, your premise could be completely false and your conclusion true. I am only saying this particular argument is not valid because you have not demonstrated the validity of your premise.

Nor have you challenged or made any effort to expose it as false. Nor do either of us have any means known to humankind that can challenge or support the statement to the satisfaction of anybody else. Some things have to be experienced in order to be known. And some things are left for us to wonder about and continue to search for answers.

No, I haven't. Nor am I going to. It is not my job to prove it false, it is the job of the person making the claim to prove it correct.

Let me tell you about an experience I had. Perhaps 30 years ago I was in a particularly heavy meditation session. I'm not sure how long I had been sitting staring at the floor when suddenly I saw before me a large frog. I recall it vividly. It was bright green with yellow stripes on its eye ridges and down his back. By large, I mean large. About the size of a small dog, perhaps 20 or 25 pounds of frog. It stared at me and I stared back. Then it jumped into my lap and disappeared. Which ended that session abruptly.

You'll have to accept my word no drugs were involved in this experience, but it was a quite real experience for me. Will you accept the conclusion from my experience that God is a frog? Or will you consider that that experience might be the result of an altered brain pattern brought on by the meditation? Or even disbelieve my claim of no drug use? Personal experience can be quite real and I do not discount its importance, but as evidence in this context, it is of little value. You can try to describe it, but you can't share it.

Good example actually to illustrate that what one thinks, what one experiences, what one contemplates cannot be PROVED to another soul. All we can do is report our perceptions and experience and thought processes and which is considered evidence in any court in the land. Credible or unshakable evidence? Maybe. Maybe not. But it is evidence just the same.

Demanding that somebody PROVE an experience or what they have concluded or what they have interpreted or what they have reasoned is not only close minded and prejudicial, but impossible for the other to comply with. You call expert witnesses not to PROVE the testimony of others or what is or is not possible, but to add their expertise to the body of evidence as to what is or is not probable or possible.

A theory is that which cannot be proved and is valid only because it is judged plausible and reasonable. It can be accepted as sufficiently credible to go forward with if sufficient others agree that the theory is plausible and reasonable.

As for your frog, I would not accept your conclusion that the frog was God. Nor would I automatically discount that you did not have that experience. I would think it probable that you had dosed off and were dreaming but it could also have been a vision of a type reported by many over the millennia or a prank somebody was playing on you or you pulling my leg or any number of other possible explanations. But having no reason to believe you are given to making up stories for purposes of deception, I would have no reason to automatically disbelieve that for you, the experience was real. But since you are the only person to have ever described God as a frog, I would think it highly unlikely that you were interpreting it correctly that God is a frog. Most especially since my own experience with God is not froglike. But neither, from an investigative or scientific perspective, would I expect you to prove what you think, what you believe, or what you report as your experience.

However if millions of people reported experiences with frogs in that way. . . .then it would be reasonable and logical to believe that something significant was going on and I, personally, would be very curious about what it was and would approach it, I believe, with an open mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more. My way is accurate and precise. So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.

that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof.
Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com

I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.

 

[Justin Davis]

Hi Justin: The most intellectually honest people whether Theist or Atheist/Nontheist
will agree that because God represents something infinite and/or beyond the scope of man,
then God can neither be proven nor disproven but rely on faith either way.

And no honest person on this thread who understands how things work would disagree with that. The people on this thread who know how things work are not saying they can prove God's existence in the way that you mean. Hollie doesn't understand what these people are telling her at all. She is wrong and confused on everything. That does not mean that a person needs faith to believe God exists, because faith is not required to use evidence and sound logical arguments to validly prove God's existence and it does not require faith to see that the evidence and the sound logical arguments for God's existence all point to His existence. It does not take faith to see that the arguments for atheism are not logical. The understanding of these things is based on reason, not faith. The kind of faith you're talking about, like the kind of "proof" you're talking about, is something altogether different. The atheists on this board are the ones claiming to know and prove things in the way that you mean, not the theists who understand how science and logic work. Evidence and sound logical proofs and the idea of proving God's existence in the way you mean are not the same thing. The atheists on this thread are the one's who are confused, not the people who know how things work, and most of them are theists.