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

[PratchettFan]

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.

I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable. If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience. You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.

You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it. You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul. If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night? You have the knowledge. But the knowledge is not demonstrable. Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.

I see what you are saying. I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge. Is that it?

That's pretty much it. IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that. If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that. Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others? No it won't be.

I get you now. And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by outcome. I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.

If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important? If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way? If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not. But that is often not the case. When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.

And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake. They think they know what this is all about. First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false. And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying. Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important. But once again he doesn't know what that is either!

Exactly! Everybody knows that God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense. These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now? Eight-hundred and some posts!

And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that everybody knows: God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!

And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed. Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.

And now that that Jake finally understands, after Eight-hundred and some posts, that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?

Answer: whatever we are talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is. IDIOT!

He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after Eight-hundred and some posts, which is more of the things that everybody knows, only to shut the door of his mind again!

One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport. I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way. It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur. They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs. But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait. I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.

Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies. They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves. I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.

One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.

To put that into a syllogistic argument:

One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
Therefore God exists.

Agree. But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.

The interesting thing about Jake, which further undermines his credibility for all to see, is that he does believe God exists. So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is blind faith, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.

Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?

Answer: A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.

 

[Taz]

If god not there, then me scared!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable. If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience. You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.

You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it. You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul. If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night? You have the knowledge. But the knowledge is not demonstrable. Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.

I see what you are saying. I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge. Is that it?

That's pretty much it. IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that. If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that. Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others? No it won't be.

I get you now. And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by outcome. I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.

If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important? If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way? If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not. But that is often not the case. When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.

Sigh. I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.

Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter. The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.

The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence. It is knowledge but was not demonstrated to you but told to you.

You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.

There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems. Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems. That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge. But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.

 

[PratchettFan]

I see what you are saying. I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge. Is that it?

That's pretty much it. IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that. If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that. Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others? No it won't be.

I get you now. And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by outcome. I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.

If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important? If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way? If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not. But that is often not the case. When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.

Sigh. I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.

Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter. The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.

The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence.

You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.

There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems. Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems. That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge. But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.

No. We have not reached an understanding. There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle. So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine. But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable. You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That's pretty much it. IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that. If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that. Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others? No it won't be.

I get you now. And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by outcome. I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.

If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important? If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way? If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not. But that is often not the case. When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.

Sigh. I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.

Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter. The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.

The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence.

You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.

There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems. Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems. That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge. But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.

No. We have not reached an understanding. There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle. So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine. But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable. You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.

All of which is moot, even if you did correctly understand the matter, which you still don't. The evidence for God's existence is, in any event, of the demonstrable kind; it's not of the non-demonstrable kind. And your real problem is that you still have your mind closed to the fact that objective evidence is not limited physical evidence and never has been.

Demonstrable evidence ≠ physical evidence, just like objective evidence ≠ physical evidence, only.

Demonstrable evidence can be both rational or empirical.

Non-demonstrable evidence can be both rational or empirical.

Foxfyre, he's not going to understand the matter until he gets it through his head that his silly abridged-dictionary definition of objectivity is wrong, that objective evidence is not limited to physical evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ngt: "whats that going on between our legs? we've got like...............a sewage system mixed with an entertainment complex. BAD DESIGN! BAD DESIGN!"

Is it? Or is the problem that you think you know more than you do?

 

[G.T.]

ngt: "whats that going on between our legs? we've got like...............a sewage system mixed with an entertainment complex. BAD DESIGN! BAD DESIGN!"

Is it? Or is the problem that you think you know more than you do?

i was quoting someone epic fail wizard, of quantum levels

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Food for thought: when you say things like "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," it appears as though you believe you've proven in the ultimate absolute sense that god even exists.

So forgive those who think you've been deluded into thinking that you're able to prove god in the ultimate absolute sense.

Is that like you thinking you have proven the opposite by claiming that something is axiomatic when it favors your position, or is that just different?

 

[G.T.]

Food for thought: when you say things like "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," it appears as though you believe you've proven in the ultimate absolute sense that god even exists.

So forgive those who think you've been deluded into thinking that you're able to prove god in the ultimate absolute sense.

Is that like you thinking you have proven the opposite by claiming that something is axiomatic when it favors your position, or is that just different?

well, silly, i never even tried to prove the opposite.

it's not currently provable, and i've certainly not claimed i could do so.

im an agnostic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. We have not reached an understanding. There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle. So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine. But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable. You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.

This is where you get lost.

Knowledge does not have to be able to be communicated to matter. It is entirely possible for a person to know something that is undeniably important, but be unable to communicate it because no one else can possibly understand it. Einstein faced that problem when he first developed the Theory of Relativity, it was so advanced that less than a handful of people understood it. Even today the people that actually understand it is limited to a very small percentage of the population of the planet, despite the fact that most of us think we understand it.

There will always be people rarefied intellectual capacity that are able to develop knowledge that they cannot demonstrate to the rest of us. That does not, in any way, make what they learn less important.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's pretty much it. IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that. If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that. Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others? No it won't be.

I get you now. And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by outcome. I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.

If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important? If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way? If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not. But that is often not the case. When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.

Sigh. I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.

Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter. The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.

The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence.

You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.

There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems. Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems. That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge. But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.

No. We have not reached an understanding. There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle. So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine. But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable. You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.

Okay. So we don't have an understanding. I know a great deal of knowledge that is of major, even critical, consequence that I cannot demonstrate to a single other soul and so do you. But some are unable to grasp the concept I guess. I won't accuse you of being in the deliberately obtuse and intentionally disruptive group, but I gave the explanation my best shot. I don't know if the failure to understand is in your inability to understand or whether I am a shitty teacher. But either way we tried.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i was quoting someone epic fail wizard, of quantum levels

Let me guess, you threw in a random quote you don't believe just because you are stupid.

If that is the position you want to take, I won't argue you out of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

well, silly, i never even tried to prove the opposite.

it's not currently provable, and i've certainly not claimed i could do so.

im an agnostic.

So that post where someone claimed that it is impossible to know everything without knowing you know everything wasn't really your post.

Got it.

 

[sealybobo]

In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.

And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake. They think they know what this is all about. First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false. And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying. Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important. But once again he doesn't know what that is either!

Exactly! Everybody knows that God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense. These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now? Eight-hundred and some posts!

And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that everybody knows: God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!

And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed. Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.

And now that that Jake finally understands, after Eight-hundred and some posts, that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?

Answer: whatever we are talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is. IDIOT!

He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after Eight-hundred and some posts, which is more of the things that everybody knows, only to shut the door of his mind again!

One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport. I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way. It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur. They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs. But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait. I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.

Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies. They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves. I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.

One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.

To put that into a syllogistic argument:

One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
Therefore God exists.

Agree. But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.

The interesting thing about Jake, which further undermines his credibility for all to see, is that he does believe God exists. So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is blind faith, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.

Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?

Answer: A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.

Hey! I believe in god and the devil now. Last night I saw an angel in the middle of the night and it told me to believe.

Do you believe I saw an angel in the middle of the night? So why the hell would we believe any unbelievable story you tell us?

 

[G.T.]

well, silly, i never even tried to prove the opposite.

it's not currently provable, and i've certainly not claimed i could do so.

im an agnostic.

So that post where someone claimed that it is impossible to know everything without knowing you know everything wasn't really your post.

Got it.

That was a post about god existing or not, or about knowledge?

God damn you're fucking extra extra douchey sauce huh?

 

[G.T.]

i was quoting someone epic fail wizard, of quantum levels

Let me guess, you threw in a random quote you don't believe just because you are stupid.

If that is the position you want to take, I won't argue you out of it.

Umm, it was a funny quote - so I posted it.


Lighten up, douche towels.

 

[Foxfyre]

In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.

And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake. They think they know what this is all about. First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false. And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying. Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important. But once again he doesn't know what that is either!

Exactly! Everybody knows that God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense. These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now? Eight-hundred and some posts!

And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that everybody knows: God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!

And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed. Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.

And now that that Jake finally understands, after Eight-hundred and some posts, that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?

Answer: whatever we are talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is. IDIOT!

He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after Eight-hundred and some posts, which is more of the things that everybody knows, only to shut the door of his mind again!

One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport. I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way. It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur. They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs. But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait. I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.

Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies. They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves. I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.

One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.

To put that into a syllogistic argument:

One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
Therefore God exists.

Agree. But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.

The interesting thing about Jake, which further undermines his credibility for all to see, is that he does believe God exists. So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is blind faith, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.

Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?

Answer: A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.

Hey! I believe in god and the devil now. Last night I saw an angel in the middle of the night and it told me to believe.

Do you believe I saw an angel in the middle of the night? So why the hell would we believe any unbelievable story you tell us?

It would rather depend on your reputation for veracity and commitment to truth wouldn't it? There are people who could tell me they saw an angel the middle of the night, and I would know beyond all reasonable doubt that they saw something that they identified as an angel. Would I believe it was in fact an angel? Not so much but I would believe the person believed it was an angel and that he wasn't hallucinating or making it up. I would file it away as knowledge that could be useful if I ran into other credible people who testified to such phenomena.

Whether I accept their interpretation of things or not, there are people I believe to be sincere, honest, and truthful to the best of their ability.

And other people not so much.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That was a post about god existing or not, or about knowledge?

God damn you're fucking extra extra douchey sauce huh?

Like all of your posts, it was about the non existence of God. Did you forget what your goal throughout this thread has been?

 

[sealybobo]

And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake. They think they know what this is all about. First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false. And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying. Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important. But once again he doesn't know what that is either!

Exactly! Everybody knows that God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense. These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now? Eight-hundred and some posts!

And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that everybody knows: God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!

And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed. Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.

And now that that Jake finally understands, after Eight-hundred and some posts, that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?

Answer: whatever we are talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is. IDIOT!

He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after Eight-hundred and some posts, which is more of the things that everybody knows, only to shut the door of his mind again!

One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport. I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way. It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur. They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs. But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait. I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.

Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies. They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves. I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.

One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.

To put that into a syllogistic argument:

One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
Therefore God exists.

Agree. But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.

The interesting thing about Jake, which further undermines his credibility for all to see, is that he does believe God exists. So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is blind faith, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.

Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?

Answer: A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.

Hey! I believe in god and the devil now. Last night I saw an angel in the middle of the night and it told me to believe.

Do you believe I saw an angel in the middle of the night? So why the hell would we believe any unbelievable story you tell us?

It would rather depend on your reputation for veracity and commitment to truth wouldn't it? There are people who could tell me they saw an angel the middle of the night, and I would know beyond all reasonable doubt that they saw something that they identified as an angel. Would I believe it was in fact an angel? Not so much but I would believe the person believed it was an angel and that he wasn't hallucinating or making it up. I would file it away as knowledge that could be useful if I ran into other credible people who testified to such phenomena.

Whether I accept their interpretation of things or not, there are people I believe to be sincere, honest, and truthful to the best of their ability.

And other people not so much.

Oh I believe they believe it too. I know my friends are sincere every last one of them.