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

[PratchettFan]

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.

I agree. Which is the very reason the particular syllogism being presented fails. While the premise may be based upon personal experience that itself might well be completely valid, it cannot be demonstrated beyond that experience. For the syllogism itself to be valid, the premise must be demonstrably true. That the syllogism fails does not mean the conclusion is wrong, only that it is not proven by the syllogism. It may not be proven by anything or even supported by anything and still be true. Under those conditions, one accepts or rejects it on faith alone. Personally, I have no problem with doing that and living comfortably in the knowledge that what I believe is based upon faith. Evidence would be nice, but it is not required.

 

[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.

I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in Posterior Analytics that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration. Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that. They demand proof. Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as infinite regress or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.

If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something. So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept. But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from? And that which created God. And so forth.

Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.

The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda. But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from. And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I agree. Which is the very reason the particular syllogism being presented fails. While the premise may be based upon personal experience that itself might well be completely valid, it cannot be demonstrated beyond that experience. For the syllogism itself to be valid, the premise must be demonstrably true. That the syllogism fails does not mean the conclusion is wrong, only that it is not proven by the syllogism. It may not be proven by anything or even supported by anything and still be true. Under those conditions, one accepts or rejects it on faith alone. Personally, I have no problem with doing that and living comfortably in the knowledge that what I believe is based upon faith. Evidence would be nice, but it is not required.

See my post #842 responding to Justin a minute or two. Other than it being necessary for the syllogism to be demonstrably true, we are getting dangerously close to agreement here.

 

[BreezeWood]

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?

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

JD: All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide.

...

.
I agree with your post, there simply may be / is a distinction between the non sentient Universe and the sentient Creator of Life those in the discussion, MDR seem unjustifiably dismissive as being a basis for partial justification of the Atheistic point of view - the sentient Creator need not have been the creator of the universe but created by it.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W. (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you. I also understand things the same way. They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing. Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it. Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable). Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too. But I thought that might be too much at one time. The problem of understanding is with you, not us. You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide. None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence. Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it? In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue. While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality. Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W. (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you. I also understand things the same way. They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing. Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it. Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable). Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too. But I thought that might be too much at one time. The problem of understanding is with you, not us. You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide. None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence. Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it? In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue. While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality. Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.

I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to say it.

But when you have a witness sworn in on the stand and he testifies that he saw Dick shoot Jane and identifies Dick as the man he saw, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that he in fact saw Dick shoot Jane. But if the defense cannot shake his testimony with evidence that the witness was someplace else or otherwise could not have witnessed the shooting or that he was known to be unreliable or impaired or some such, that witness's testimony will carry a great deal of weight.

Think of the trial in "My Cousin Vinny." The prosecution put up three people, all who appeared to be entirely credible, all who unequivocably claimed to have seen the defendants enter the store and then run out of the store immediately after the shooting and speed away in the lime green Buick Skylark convertible. Had there been no other evidence available to clear the defendants, and had Vinny not been able to discredit the testimony of each one of those three witnesses, the defendants would have been in serious jeopardy based on that testimony alone.
Movie Speech My Cousin Vinny - Gambini Cross Examines Mr. Tipton

 

[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?

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

JD: All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide.

...

.
I agree with your post, there simply may be / is a distinction between the non sentient Universe and the sentient Creator of Life those in the discussion, MDR seem unjustifiably dismissive as being a basis for partial justification of the Atheistic point of view - the sentient Creator need not have been the creator of the universe but created by it.

While what youre saying doesn't make sense to me as that looks like a chicken-egg thing, where did MDR dismiss the idea of pantheism, if that's what it is, as being something he could prove wrong in an ultimate way other than with a standard logical proof? I think that's highly unlikely that he tried to argue anything like that. That would be totally the opposite of everything else he has said that I know of. What I do know is that I can't make heads or tails out of "the sentient Creator need not have been the creator of the universe but created by it." If that's the idea he dismissed I'd agree with him. That's strikes me as absurd as it appears to violate the logic of cause-and-effect. While I'll reserve my judgment on that until you explain it further, if it's what it appears to be MDR's rejection would be justified in my opinion. But maybe its the way you presented it to him. I don't know. The only thing I read from him was a totally open statement regarding the conceivable possibility of pantheism. All I remember him saying about that is that it wouldn't make a difference to us.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W. (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you. I also understand things the same way. They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing. Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it. Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable). Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too. But I thought that might be too much at one time. The problem of understanding is with you, not us. You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide. None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence. Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it? In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue. While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality. Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.

I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to say it.

But when you have a witness sworn in on the stand and he testifies that he saw Dick shoot Jane and identifies Dick as the man he saw, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that he in fact saw Dick shoot Jane. But if the defense cannot shake his testimony with evidence that the witness was someplace else or otherwise could not have witnessed the shooting or that he was known to be unreliable or impaired or some such, that witness's testimony will carry a great deal of weight.

Think of the trial in "My Cousin Vinny." The prosecution put up three people, all who appeared to be entirely credible, all who unequivocably claimed to have seen the defendants enter the store and then run out of the store immediately after the shooting and speed away in the lime green Buick Skylark convertible. Had there been no other evidence available to clear the defendants, and had Vinny not been able to discredit the testimony of each one of those three witnesses, the defendants would have been in serious jeopardy based on that testimony alone.
Movie Speech My Cousin Vinny - Gambini Cross Examines Mr. Tipton

That's one of my favorite movies. I totally agree with you. What I meant about the right way to say was this part: "You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide. None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence." In other words, these guys keep confusing the two kinds of evidence. You guys aren't arguing anything supernatural, right?

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in Posterior Analytics that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration. Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that. They demand proof. Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as infinite regress or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.

If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something. So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept. But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from? And that which created God. And so forth.

Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.

The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda. But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from. And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.

I agree, but it's at the point where they ask where God came from, which is really a question about who or what God is, that the arguments get into the more complex issues. I've read Aristotle's unmoved Mover argument and he anticipates these issues with a brilliant summary about what God is as opposed to what "moving things" are, and its all based on the same epistemological principle of knowledge that just is because it can't be alternately understood without contradiction.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W. (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you. I also understand things the same way. They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing. Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it. Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable). Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too. But I thought that might be too much at one time. The problem of understanding is with you, not us. You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide. None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence. Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it? In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue. While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality. Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.

I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to say it.

But when you have a witness sworn in on the stand and he testifies that he saw Dick shoot Jane and identifies Dick as the man he saw, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that he in fact saw Dick shoot Jane. But if the defense cannot shake his testimony with evidence that the witness was someplace else or otherwise could not have witnessed the shooting or that he was known to be unreliable or impaired or some such, that witness's testimony will carry a great deal of weight.

Think of the trial in "My Cousin Vinny." The prosecution put up three people, all who appeared to be entirely credible, all who unequivocably claimed to have seen the defendants enter the store and then run out of the store immediately after the shooting and speed away in the lime green Buick Skylark convertible. Had there been no other evidence available to clear the defendants, and had Vinny not been able to discredit the testimony of each one of those three witnesses, the defendants would have been in serious jeopardy based on that testimony alone.
Movie Speech My Cousin Vinny - Gambini Cross Examines Mr. Tipton

That's one of my favorite movies. I totally agree with you. What I meant about the right way to say was this part: "You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide. None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence." In other words, these guys keep confusing the two kinds of evidence. You guys aren't arguing anything supernatural, right?

I am not arguing anything theologically. My argument here is strictly of a practical and rational nature. If we go with Spinoza and Einstein's theories that there is a symmetry and order in the universe that goes beyond the mathematical probability that it could have all happened by accident or chance, then there is a strong argument for some kind of intelligence to be guiding the process. And if we go with that argument, it is reasonable to believe that the universe itself is infused with some sort of cosmic intelligence or there was a Creator that called it all into being. Either way, the intelligence could be labeled "God".

So would that be natural? Or supernatural? It doesn't really matter if you keep religious faith out of the equation does it?

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W. (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you. I also understand things the same way. They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing. Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it. Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable). Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too. But I thought that might be too much at one time. The problem of understanding is with you, not us. You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide. None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence. Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it? In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue. While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality. Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.

I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to say it.

But when you have a witness sworn in on the stand and he testifies that he saw Dick shoot Jane and identifies Dick as the man he saw, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that he in fact saw Dick shoot Jane. But if the defense cannot shake his testimony with evidence that the witness was someplace else or otherwise could not have witnessed the shooting or that he was known to be unreliable or impaired or some such, that witness's testimony will carry a great deal of weight.

Think of the trial in "My Cousin Vinny." The prosecution put up three people, all who appeared to be entirely credible, all who unequivocably claimed to have seen the defendants enter the store and then run out of the store immediately after the shooting and speed away in the lime green Buick Skylark convertible. Had there been no other evidence available to clear the defendants, and had Vinny not been able to discredit the testimony of each one of those three witnesses, the defendants would have been in serious jeopardy based on that testimony alone.
Movie Speech My Cousin Vinny - Gambini Cross Examines Mr. Tipton

That's one of my favorite movies. I totally agree with you. What I meant about the right way to say was this part: "You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide. None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence." In other words, these guys keep confusing the two kinds of evidence. You guys aren't arguing anything supernatural, right?

I am not arguing anything theologically. My argument here is strictly of a practical and rational nature. If we go with Spinoza and Einstein's theories that there is a symmetry and order in the universe that goes beyond the mathematical probability that it could have all happened by accident or chance, then there is a strong argument for some kind of intelligence to be guiding the process. And if we go with that argument, it is reasonable to believe that the universe itself is infused with some sort of cosmic intelligence or there was a Creator that called it all into being. Either way, the intelligence could be labeled "God".

So would that be natural? Or supernatural? It doesn't really matter if you keep religious faith out of the equation does it?

I agree. MDR made the same point about pantheism as you which is what Breezewood is asking me about now. Basically, he said the same thing: would it matter?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Justin: It goes FURTHER than that.

If you read the observations and conclusions by Scott Peck in his book "Glimpses of the Devil"
he comes to the understanding that even though the spiritual phenomena cannot be proven,
the EFFECTS and PROCESS of resolving conflicts CAN be Quantified, Measured, and shown to follow a prescribed
pattern of stages, based on the methods he studied of Deliverance and Exorcism to
HEAL schizophrenia patients of "demonic voices,"

Dr. Peck did not believe this spiritual process was real until he experienced the process, step by step,
and witnessed and recorded all the stages as predicted, using the Scientific Method.

Like you and Hollie, he went into the proof ASSUMING the opposite, that he would debunk this spiritual nonsense
and prove it was delusional in people's heads, since he was a licensed practicing psychiatrist and knew what schizophrenia was.

UNLIKE you and Hollie, he actually conducted his own observations.

He decided if it were true, then he should be able to observe the symptoms, the stages and the end signs the person is "delivered" of demonic voices or personalities, and follow all the same patterns in a logical observable and quantifiable process.

So he observed two schizophrenic patients, deemed incureable by traditional process of medication and therapy,
and changed his mind within the second interview that this WAS spiritual and not just mental illness or delusion.

By the end of the successful treatment, he not only witnessed the changes where both patients regained their normal minds, reason and free will, without obstruction by the destructive "demonic personality and rages," but he lost one patient to medical conditions she accumulated from denying herself medical care all the years she was in this sick state without help.

So not only did he change his mind, but drew several conclusions:
1. the idea of a hierarchy of Satanic and demonic entities was still not proveable
but the effects of this were real and observable, and he was convinced although he could not prove this
to others because it was on a spiritual level of experience or perception (similar to what PF witnessed
from another plane of reality that can intersect with ours, and be real but not proveable, like we cannot
prove physically what we dreamed last night and have to take it on faith that everyone is telling the truth)

2. the process of deliverance and exorcism did succeed in identifying the sickness, the stages
and the progression of treatment, cure or failure which requires additional intervention to overcome the reason for blockage.
Specifically, for case of schizophrenia or mental illness INVOLVING such demonic voices,
this method should be fully and formally researched, developed and made available just like other steps of therapy
which follow the stages of someone's sickness from diagnosis to progression to cure and recovery.

3. the diagnosis and process should be applied EARLY on for best chances of success and less risk of losing someone
to longterm effects of not getting treated and cured, as Peck watched one of his patients make it, but the other died of some physical diseased conditions where she had abused her body, refusing medical help until after she was cured of the "demonic" personality first, which happened too late in life where she died of lifetime damage inflicted on her own body
as part of her self-destructive sickness.

Out of pure compassion for people, both the mentally ill, and the victims of criminally ill people
who have even a chance of being monitored, managed, treated or cured with these methods,
that reason alone should be enough to study it.

Any chance or theory of finding a cure for AIDS or Cancer is jumped on by doctors with lots of funding for research.

Where is the research support for spiritual healing that has Centuries of testimonies that it has
cured cases of cancer, diabetes, incureable liver and kidney diseases, multiple personalities,
schizophrenic, sex abuse or addiction, drug abuse or addiction, rheumatoid arthritis and other crippling or fatal conditions.

Why is there money for marijuana research
but not spiritual healing that can cure all the same things plus treat the addiction behind drug use?

Is that just not popular because it would change society so much
that the people who want to be in control would not have it?

Medical monopolies and profits off the prison system and mental health medications
would no longer have power over manipulating people by fear of incureable conditions?

Or is it like Peck and other authors have said:
because the fundamentalists in both religion are against science being worshipped
and in science against religion being worshipped, they both block research that would prove these are not opposites.

What fear of change is holding this up?
It seems obvious to me, but maybe because I do have friends
who conduct spiritual healing for free and have literally saved lives
as well as sanity, relations and entire families from sickness, abuse and addiction
by breaking the cycle in the spirit and bringing full and natural healing.

As long as this process is made mystical and kept hidden in the faith-based communities,
how many more people die of suicide, homicide, abuse, addictions, depression and other mental illness
who could have been saved.

Where does the selfishness stop
and where do people put the spiritual health of people
above the petty politics preventing this from being researched, resolved and recognized?

how much longer?

 

[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.

And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W. (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you. I also understand things the same way. They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing. Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it. Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable). Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too. But I thought that might be too much at one time. The problem of understanding is with you, not us. You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide. None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence. Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it? In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue. While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality. Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.

Once again you dance and prance and saying different things than you diid before, when I have been consistent and clear from the beginning.

Justin, a hint for you: we recognize long paragraphs for justification for what they are ~ you fool no one.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in Posterior Analytics that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration. Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that. They demand proof. Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as infinite regress or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.

If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something. So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept. But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from? And that which created God. And so forth.

Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.

The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda. But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from. And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.

While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system. So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.

 

[Justin Davis]

Like you and Hollie, he went into the proof ASSUMING the opposite, that he would debunk this spiritual nonsense
and prove it was delusional in people's heads, since he was a licensed practicing psychiatrist and knew what schizophrenia was.

Actually, I have no opinion on this one way or the other regarding the claims that you're making. My personal perspective about such things is Christian. What can be, can be, and will express itself in the natural in a well-regulated and discernible pattern. I don't know what Hollie personally believes about these things.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in Posterior Analytics that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration. Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that. They demand proof. Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as infinite regress or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.

If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something. So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept. But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from? And that which created God. And so forth.

Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.

The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda. But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from. And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.

While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system. So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.

If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things? The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system. That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about. Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time. He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.

He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity. Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature. But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere. He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on. We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts. And as for his observation he coined as infinite regress which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.

So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:

Everything that exists must have a beginning.
The universe exists.
Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.

Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.

 

[PratchettFan]

*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.

I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in Posterior Analytics that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration. Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that. They demand proof. Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as infinite regress or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.

If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something. So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept. But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from? And that which created God. And so forth.

Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.

The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda. But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from. And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.

While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system. So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.

If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things? The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system. That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about. Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time. He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.

He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity. Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature. But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere. He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on. We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts. And as for his observation he coined as infinite regress which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.

So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:

Everything that exists must have a beginning.
The universe exists.
Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.

Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.

When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong. He may have been right about other things, but not about this.

Ok, to the argument.

Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning? Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in Posterior Analytics that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration. Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that. They demand proof. Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as infinite regress or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.

If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something. So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept. But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from? And that which created God. And so forth.

Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.

The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda. But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from. And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.

While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system. So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.

If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things? The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system. That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about. Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time. He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.

He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity. Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature. But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere. He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on. We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts. And as for his observation he coined as infinite regress which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.

So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:

Everything that exists must have a beginning.
The universe exists.
Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.

Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.

When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong. He may have been right about other things, but not about this.

Ok, to the argument.

Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning? Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.

Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today? I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence. That would be absurd. What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge. A very different thing.

And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in Posterior Analytics that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration. Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that. They demand proof. Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as infinite regress or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.

If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something. So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept. But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from? And that which created God. And so forth.

Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.

The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda. But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from. And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.

While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system. So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.

If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things? The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system. That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about. Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time. He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.

He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity. Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature. But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere. He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on. We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts. And as for his observation he coined as infinite regress which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.

So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:

Everything that exists must have a beginning.
The universe exists.
Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.

Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.

When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong. He may have been right about other things, but not about this.

Ok, to the argument.

Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning? Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.

Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today? I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence. That would be absurd. What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge. A very different thing.

And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.

I am notoriously thick. What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?

There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.

 

[sealybobo]

I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in Posterior Analytics that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration. Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that. They demand proof. Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as infinite regress or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.

If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something. So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept. But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from? And that which created God. And so forth.

Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.

The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda. But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from. And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.

While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system. So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.

If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things? The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system. That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about. Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time. He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.

He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity. Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature. But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere. He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on. We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts. And as for his observation he coined as infinite regress which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.

So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:

Everything that exists must have a beginning.
The universe exists.
Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.

Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.

When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong. He may have been right about other things, but not about this.

Ok, to the argument.

Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning? Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.

Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today? I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence. That would be absurd. What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge. A very different thing.

And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.

I am notoriously thick. What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?

There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.

Including god?