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

[PratchettFan]

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?

Certainly.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket. If it is important that I know what a tiddly wink is, that could be important evidence that I probably do know what a tiddly wink is.

I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket and therefore can be concluded that I probably know what a tiddly wink is..

The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases. In one case the truth was demonstrated. In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth, ie knowledge, just the same.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.

I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.

The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases. In one case the truth was demonstrated. In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.

When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word. When you showed, me I had evidence of the object. I am still not getting the difference.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.

I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.

The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases. In one case the truth was demonstrated. In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.

When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word. When you showed, me I had evidence of the object. I am still not getting the difference.

Well I think most people do get the difference. Both are knowledge. One is a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge. If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that. And your knowledge will be extremely limited.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

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

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

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

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

How is it evidence?

You said you believed in God. Why do you believe in God?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever. In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!

How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?

The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.

 

[Hollie]

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.

As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever. In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!

How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?

The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.

".... because I say so"

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

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

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

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

How is it evidence?

You said you believed in God. Why do you believe in God?

Answer the question, mutton head. You are not leading a seminar, you are being instructed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.

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

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

As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever. In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!

How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?

The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.

".... because I say so"

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

Thank you for admitting this is over, and you have nothing but your belief.

 

[haissem123]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

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

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

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

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

since I can't trust any of my fellow untrustworthy scumbag humans, in God I must trust. lol.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Ironically, Aristotle's general epistemology is more like yours, which caused him to get some things wrong. But it wasn't because his intuitive logic or his logic about that data of his sensual perceptions was wrong. The necessary mathematics and technology had not been developed yet. Neither had the modern scientific method. That's all. So your criticism of Aristotle's view of intuitive knowledge is distorted, and you just intuitively proved what he held to be true about it, in contradiction to what you claimed to be the only reliable basis for knowledge in other posts as if empirical data interprets itself, though you've never provided a coherent idea about what objective evidence is in your mind. Aristotle was not an idealist, but an empiricist. You seem to be under the impression that he was the former. He did believe that physical evidence was the first priority of knowledge, but all he had to go on was how things appeared to his naked senses. He accurately described what appeared to be guided by intuitive logic and the mathematics of the time. Guess what? Most of his ideas, including his cosmological ideas, that we now know to be wrong were accurate relative to the tools at his disposal. That's why he remains important, for his work in formal logic was origin and is faultlessly brilliant. That was not wrong and science uses the logical conventions that he formally developed. There's a wicked twist here that you don't get and you have closed off your mind to the only way of getting it.

 

[Justin Davis]

Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.

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

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

As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever. In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!

How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?

The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.

".... because I say so"

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

Thank you for admitting this is over, and you have nothing but your belief.

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.

False. You're understanding of what I said before is wrong. You're understanding of what the others have been telling you is wrong. And so if what you're now implying is that you agree with what I just said, which is the same thing I've been saying all along, you are now contradicting yourself. You're also implying that I lied. You are a very disturbed and confused person. You’re not to be taken seriously. I see that you don't care about the truth or about real human interaction.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever. In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!

How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?

The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.

".... because I say so"

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

Thank you for admitting this is over, and you have nothing but your belief.

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.

False. You're understanding of what I said before is wrong. You're understanding of what the others have been telling you is wrong. And so if what you're now implying is that you agree with what I just said, which is the same thing I've been saying all along, you are now contradicting yourself. You're also implying that I lied. You are a very disturbed and confused person. You’re not to be taken seriously. I see that you don't care about the truth or about real human interaction.

Jake and Hollie are pathological nitwits and liars. Don't waste your time. I gave Jake one last chance to pull his head out of his ass and try to understand what I'm talking about. He just argues to argue. That's all he's ever done on this forum.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Ironically, Aristotle's general epistemology is more like yours, which caused him to get some things wrong. But it wasn't because his intuitive logic or his logic about that data of his sensual perceptions was wrong. The necessary mathematics and technology had not been developed yet. Neither had the modern scientific method. That's all. So your criticism of Aristotle's view of intuitive knowledge is distorted, and you just intuitively proved what he held to be true about it, in contradiction to what you claimed to be the only reliable basis for knowledge in other posts as if empirical data interprets itself, though you've never provided a coherent idea about what objective evidence is in your mind. Aristotle was not an idealist, but an empiricist. You seem to be under the impression that he was the former. He did believe that physical evidence was the first priority of knowledge, but all he had to go on was how things appeared to his naked senses. He accurately described what appeared to be guided by intuitive logic and the mathematics of the time. Guess what? Most of his ideas, including his cosmological ideas, that we now know to be wrong were accurate relative to the tools at his disposal. That's why he remains important, for his work in formal logic was origin and is faultlessly brilliant. That was not wrong and science uses the logical conventions that he formally developed. There's a wicked twist here that you don't get and you have closed off your mind to the only way of getting it.

This is right on the money. Locke the empiricist developed his epistemological construct of the tabula rasa, from Aristotle's construct of the blank slate.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.

I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.

The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases. In one case the truth was demonstrated. In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.

When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word. When you showed, me I had evidence of the object. I am still not getting the difference.

Well I think most people do get the difference. Both are knowledge. One is a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge. If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that. And your knowledge will be extremely limited.

What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration. Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge. Which is ok when it has no consequences.

I have two major hobbies. The first is motorcycles and the second diving. I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression. It's what I love. But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago. There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How many times are you going to post what you bolded before you show where I even argued that, in the first place?

Jeebus Christ you're retarded.

It's not my fault you can't grasp what's going on due your intellectual dishonest and closed-mindedness. Carry on. . . . Your noise is refuted by the following rendering anything more you have to say on the matter moot.

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

And:

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


Justin wants to understand the arguments. If you had any commonsense you'd shut the hell up and start thinking rather than reacting. People like you and Hollie and Jake just argue to argue. Piss off.

 

[Hollie]

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.

As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever. In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!

How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?

The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.

".... because I say so"

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

Thank you for admitting this is over, and you have nothing but your belief.

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.

False. You're understanding of what I said before is wrong. You're understanding of what the others have been telling you is wrong. And so if what you're now implying is that you agree with what I just said, which is the same thing I've been saying all along, you are now contradicting yourself. You're also implying that I lied. You are a very disturbed and confused person. You’re not to be taken seriously. I see that you don't care about the truth or about real human interaction.

Jake and Hollie are pathological nitwits and liars. Don't waste your time. I gave Jake one last chance to pull his head out of his ass and try to understand what I'm talking about. He just argues to argue. That's all he's ever done on this forum.

How many times are you going to post what you bolded before you show where I even argued that, in the first place?

Jeebus Christ you're retarded.

It's not my fault you can't grasp what's going on due your intellectual dishonest and closed-mindedness. Carry on. . . . Your noise is refuted by the following rendering anything more you have to say on the matter moot.

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

And:

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


Justin wants to understand the arguments. If you had any commonsense you'd shut the hell up and start thinking rather than reacting. People like you and Hollie and Jake just argue to argue. Piss off.

You're quite mistaken. With your frantic, and ultimately failed attempts to write a coherent argument, you come across as just another self-hating religious zealot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D., Justin, and Hollie: no one really cares what you think. None of you can concretely prove your assertions. That means you have been dicking along for 44 pages.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.

Continued from Post #794: http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-there-one-sound-valid-syllogistic-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.376399/page-27#post-9877513

The Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists. ​

On the terms of logical proofs: since any argument that attempts to falsify the claim made by the major premise of the transcendental argument (See Post #691.) will actually prove the claim to be logically valid, we may justifiably dismiss those who claim that there exists no objectively discernible, independent justification that the claim in the major premise is true; for the naysayers themselves prove it to be logically valid with their very own arguments. In other words, they demand independent verification, provide independent verification themselves and then assert that their logical proof for the validity of the major premise's claim doesn’t exist or isn't logically valid. Neither one of these claims is factually true.

(By the way, Kant was the first to formally assert it. It has never been falsified! It can't be falsified, a well-established analytical fact in academia. But more to the point, it's not impervious to falsification merely because it's expression is logically coherent or because the essence of its object is not immediately accessible, as so many of you mistakenly believe. If that were all there were to it, nobody would care. The reason it's important is because, eerily, any argument launched against it will actually prove the major premise is logically valid.)

Hence, the only potentially legitimate objection to the claim made in the major premise is the bald, logically unsupported assertion that it might not be true, ultimately, outside of our minds. Fine. But let us be clear: There is no independently verifiable ground whatsoever to believe this is true outside of our minds under the conventional standards of justifiable knowledge or the conventional standards of logic, which allow that the premises of presuppositional arguments are justifiable knowledge if proven to be logically valid due to the inescapable exigencies of human cognition. In other words, the claim in the major premise is not merely an axiom, but a demonstrably incontrovertible theorem, as, once again, any attempt to refute it is a "counterargument" that is in reality the major premise for a complex, formal argument consisting of multiple axioms/postulates that invariably lead to a "discovered" proof that the truth claim in the major premise is logically valid.

Notwithstanding, while the observation that the claim in the major premise of the transcendental argument is conceivably false outside of our minds is not justifiable knowledge, it remains a propositionally justifiable objection, and that's due to the nature of presuppositional arguments. But the transcendental argument makes no claims whatsoever with regard to the legitimacy of propositionally justifiable objections. In other words, while the discrete objection in this case is not justifiable knowledge, the understanding that propositionally justifiable objections are legitimate, insofar as they are not absurdities, is justifiable knowledge.

Let me further underscore the distinction:

A discrete, propositionally justifiable objection ≠ justifiable knowledge or truth.

The understanding that coherent, propositionally justifiable objections are legitimate = justifiable knowledge.​

A discrete, propositionally justifiable objection is something that is conceivably true, but not explicably or demonstrably true. On the other hand, justifiable knowledge or truths are things that are demonstrably and authoritatively true from experience, or true by their very nature intuitively. Ideally, an instance of justifiable knowledge is something that is demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively true.

The only discernibly practical objection that the naysayer can assert against the transcendental argument is purely academic: the notion that it begs the question, albeit, strictly in terms of its structural expression, which makes no difference to the fact that the major premise logically holds true against all comers. Hence, this objection is even weaker than the propositionally justifiable objection, which is a dead end, analytically!

But lets take a look at this academic objection in its syllogistic form:

1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.​

Now the most interesting thing about this objection is not the fact that its major premise, unlike that of the real McCoy, is inherently contradictory and that it actually serves as yet another major premise for yet another argument that actually proves that the conclusion of the real McCoy is logically valid, but the fact that it attacks, without success, the validity of the universal laws of logic by presupposing the universal laws of logic.

But before we move on to why that's so and why that's important, let's make sure that our atheist friends of god-like omniscience are on the same page with us benighted theists:

God = omniscience (or all knowledge).

Thus, the major premise of the academic objection = Knowledge is not possible if all knowledge exists.

Or:

= Knowledge is possible if all knowledge doesn't exist.​

That brick never gets off the ground, let alone gets a flight plan.

Continued tomorrow. . . .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Argue all you want, M. D., you are wrong. No more "just one time again".