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

[dblack]

Are we somehow pre-programmed via our DNA so that our every thought, physical response, and action is already determined from the moment of conceptions and there is nothing we can do to alter that? The thing we call mind/soul instinctively rejects that concept, but of course that could be part of the programming. Which does beg the question: is there then a programmer?

I think our conception of determinism is fundamentally flawed. First of all, I don't think 'determined' and 'pre-determined' are necessarily the same thing. That turns into a pretty subtle argument, so I won't get into it unless you're interested, but it does make a difference.

Which, via empirical experience, logic, reason, and ability to discern, we accept that we have a mind/soul that is able to reason, to understand, to accept, to reject, to choose, to go against its own nature, and to grow and develop and improve and expand in knowledge. And while some will succumb to indoctrination and coercion and brain washing and status quo, some have ability to think outside the box and reject the conventional wisdom and see that there are better and different ways to think, to understand, to explore, to be.

And that, is the basic definition of free will. That which we are and choose to be apart from what any others or any God ordains that we should or must be.

I agree. And I don't think that kind of free will really depends on the rejection of "determinism". Whether reality is tightly bound by physical laws, and thus strictly causal, or not, doesn't really having any bearing on the concept of free will you describe here. What you describe here is our ability make decisions, and that exists whether reality is fully predictable or not. And, when you dig into it, saying it's not predictable, contending that our innermost decisions are not bound by cause-and-effect - makes them weirdly meaningless. Why is it preferable to imagine that you choose good by random chance, rather than because you are a good person (because your parents taught you to be or because you learned it brings the most happiness or because ... etc, etc..) ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you posit that logical absolutes are unaccounted for without a god which is an uncaused cause (which, you cant account for uncaused causes) you are being absurd.

You are asserting that logic is accounted for by something that is unaccounted for.

Double standard, and absurd.

LOL!

I'm not asserting whether or not such a thing ultimately exists, or whether or not either you or I believe such a thing ultimately exists.

Dude!

I'm asking you what you had in mind when you talked about the all-knowing knower with QW. Did you or did you not assert that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things, including the knowledge that it did IN FACT know all things?

Dude!

Would you agree with the following statement in terms of logical coherency or consistency ONLY?

Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? That's what I'm getting from you. Is that in fact what you're saying?​

 

[G.T.]

If you posit that logical absolutes are unaccounted for without a god which is an uncaused cause (which, you cant account for uncaused causes) you are being absurd.

You are asserting that logic is accounted for by something that is unaccounted for.

Double standard, and absurd.

LOL!

I'm not asserting whether or not such a thing ultimately exists, or whether or not either you or I believe such a thing ultimately exists.

Dude!

I'm asking you what you had in mind when you talked about the all-knowing knower with QW. Did you or did you not assert that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things, including the knowledge that it did IN FACT know all things?

Dude!

Would you agree with the following statement in terms of logical coherency or consistency ONLY?

[indent]Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? That's what I'm getting from you. Is that in fact what you're saying?[/indent]

The transcendental argument suggests such a thing ultimately exists.

It fails because it's based on a presupposition.

Believing in logical axioms is one presupposition.
Believing logical axioms exist AND god is their source is TWO.

I answered your question already, ask it one more time without going back and grabbing my answer and we can be done here.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I believe that Jesus Christ was the living Son of God born to his mother Mary who was a virgin. He was crucified and rose three days later to sit at the right hand of the Father.

If you believe, great. If you don't, great as well. Nuff said...

 

[Foxfyre]

Are we somehow pre-programmed via our DNA so that our every thought, physical response, and action is already determined from the moment of conceptions and there is nothing we can do to alter that? The thing we call mind/soul instinctively rejects that concept, but of course that could be part of the programming. Which does beg the question: is there then a programmer?

I think our conception of determinism is fundamentally flawed. First of all, I don't think 'determined' and 'pre-determined' are necessarily the same thing. That turns into a pretty subtle argument, so I won't get into it unless you're interested, but it does make a difference.

Which, via empirical experience, logic, reason, and ability to discern, we accept that we have a mind/soul that is able to reason, to understand, to accept, to reject, to choose, to go against its own nature, and to grow and develop and improve and expand in knowledge. And while some will succumb to indoctrination and coercion and brain washing and status quo, some have ability to think outside the box and reject the conventional wisdom and see that there are better and different ways to think, to understand, to explore, to be.

And that, is the basic definition of free will. That which we are and choose to be apart from what any others or any God ordains that we should or must be.

I agree. And I don't think that kind of free will really depends on the rejection of "determinism". Whether reality is tightly bound by physical laws, and thus strictly causal, or not, doesn't really having any bearing on the concept of free will you describe here. What you describe here is our ability make decisions, and that exists whether reality is fully predictable or not. And, when you dig into it, saying it's not predictable, contending that our innermost decisions are not bound by cause-and-effect - makes them weirdly meaningless. Why is it preferable to imagine that you choose good by random chance, rather than because you are a good person (because your parents taught you to be or because you learned it brings the most happiness or because ... etc, etc..) ?

To focus on the example you provided for purposes of discussion--as long as we both understand it is not the ONLY example that could be used--I think choosing good over evil/bad/destructive/counterproductive/etc. is all of the above. Some of it is influenced by observing others, some of it is determined by moral teachings, some of it is influenced by our experience with what produces the most pleasurable or beneficial outcome, and some of it is by pure accident/random choice.

And some of it is via pure logic and reason--ability to deduce right and wrong that comes from no apparent external source but purely is a product of our own ability to reason and make choices. Where does that come from? A spark of the Divine or that which we label God? Perhaps it is a possible piece of evidence for that puzzle. But nevertheless, it is my opinion/observance/experience that it happens.

Example from the histories of George Washington Carver that made an impression on me years ago:

He had long advanced from his beginnings as a slave and had obtained a reputation as a gifted and prestigious scientist, teacher, lecturer. Attending a scientific conference, he was invited to join some white colleagues for lunch, but it was still the segregated south. He was not allowed to be seated with his colleagues but could sit at a table in the kitchen with the other black folks. His embarrassed colleagues suggested they leave and find another place, but time was short and he assured them it was fine. He rankled under the injustice of it, but he also reasoned that if he was good enough to be treated as any other human being, he also was not too good to sit with the people in the kitchen.

Nobody taught him that. The concept came from his own ability to reason and make moral judgments. I think probably most of us have experienced the same ability to reason something differently than all others around us. We choose to be the one lemming that doesn't follow the others off the cliff and into the sea.

 

[Brucethethinker]

Define God.

"God" has always meant the unknown.

It's not satisfactory.

I didn't think it would be (a satisfactory explanation). It takes awhile for it to sink in.

The unknown answers still pre-existed our knowing them. They didn't change in nature once we knew them, so for them to have gone from "god" to "answers" suggests a change where there was none. Nothing changed about the answer itself, only our knowledge of it.

Copernicus suggested that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the solar system. Sir Issac Newton invented calculus to describe the laws of nature. However, the laws of motion can be described with the earth as the center of the solar system. The only difference is that the calculations are more difficult. Neither system, sun centered or earth centered, is more "correct". The sun as the center of the solar system makes it easier for we humans to understand.

Therefore, I challenge your contention that "answers pre-existed our knowing them".

Why not call the unknown "the unknown,"...

Why not indeed? Because calling it "god" enables us to pretend we have knowledge when in fact we don't.

It may seem trivial, but it really is quite profound. As man learns more about the universe, he learns about himself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The transcendental argument suggests such a thing ultimately exists.

It fails because it's based on a presupposition.

Believing in logical axioms is one presupposition.

Believing logical axioms exist AND god is their source is TWO.

I answered your question already, ask it one more time without going back and grabbing my answer and we can be done here.

No. You have not answered my question. None of this has anything to do with my question. And in any event, you still do not understand the matter. Your allegation that the presupposition of God's existence in the major premise is not independently or objectively supported is hogwash, but you will either not acknowledge that or do not understand why that’s so. Hence, move on.

Focus! I'm asking you about the following only!

You wrote these things:

. . .who can possibly know everything and not KNOW that he/she/it knows everything. Because by default, that one thing they do not know - means they do not know everything.



. . . You let me know how an all knower could not KNOW that it is all knowing, in your imagination, or I'll take it as a concession. But if it doesnt know its all knowing, thats a piece of knowledge it doesnt posess thus its no longer even an all knower.



. . . I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.



. . . I said, "an all knower necessarily has to KNOW it is all knowing."

If I understand you correctly, I agree with you on this point!

The only thing I'm asking right now—what is this, for the fourth time?—is, given what you have written, would you agree with the following statement, which is written in such a way as to eliminate QW's objection or any other potential objection:

An all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including knowing that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? ​

For the fourth time, a simple yes will do, unless you've changed your mind or would tweak the statement to improve it, for it appears to me that we agree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.

Perhaps that is because philosophy is full of shit, and scientists deal in reality.

Free will exists, the universe is not predeterministic. You can post every single philosophical argument you want to defend the idea that I am wrong, I will point to actual scientific evidence that contradicts you to prove the negative I just claimed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're the one who invoked the computer as a knower, dunce.

Sigh.

I invoked it as a way to illustrate who your claim that you have to know you know everything in order to be all knowing is wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But honestly, this is a great example of the lengths of dishonesty you'd go to in a conversation, which reaffirms you're not worth having one with.

I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.

Yes, you invoked an axiom claiming that it is universally true, which is a concept that only exist in philosophy, which has nothing to do with the real world. There are no universal truths outside of philosophy and logic.

Feel free to keep pretending that me understanding this somehow proves you are smarter than I am.

You tried to posit an example of where it's not true.

You know that because you are the Universal Arbiter of Truth.

Sounds stupid when I say it, doesn't it? Trust me, it sounds just as stupid when you say it.

You said, a computer that is programmed to collect all knowledge, but doesnt have access to what it collects.

I said, part of ]"all knowledge" necessarily becomes that this computer HAS/COLLECTS "all knowledge," thus that is part of the knowledge it collects, thus it knows it is all knowing.

Yet you fail to prove it is not true, you just assert your dogmatic decree as the Universal Arbiter of Truth.

You come back with "how does a computer know anything?" and call me stupid?

A mocking question which you have failed to answer.

Ummmmmm, jerkoff, if you're not calling the computer the knower in the first place, then it's not even an example that fits the scenario and who the fuck knows why you even presented it.

To mock your dogma.

If you are calling the computer the knower, the example fails because a part of what it collects (all knowledge) is that it, itself, has all knowledge.

What, other than being the Universal Arbiter of Truth, do you have to support that claim?

Try again, you dishonest schmuck.

But I am having so much fun mocking you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing can be imagined. I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined. It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.

I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true. It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.

In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not time, as we understand it, has always existed is odd. Just cut to the chase. If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist. I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.

I am asserting that the universe is not bound the human philosophy of logic.

Seriously, why is that so hard to understand, especially when theology postulates an omniscient being that chooses not to know everything in order to give humans free will?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But in order for one to know everything, wouldn't one necessarily know that one knew everything? It appears that you're leaving something out of everything.

There are actually things I know that I don't know I know because I don't remember them consciously. Given an omnipotent, omniscient, being, why should I put limits on what that being can do simply because logic, which is a human created tool, tells me that it makes sense?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Continued from Post #879: http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-there-one-sound-valid-syllogistic-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.376399/page-30#post-9883604

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. ​

It seems to me that there remains a serious misunderstanding about what the transcendental argument, which is the most powerful argument for God's existence, demonstrates. Though the following is not in fact the ultimate point: by definition, there is nothing that may be known (or nothing that may exist) that is not known by an all-knowing knower. An all-knowing knower necessarily knows all things, including the awareness that it knows everything that may be known.

An omniscient Being = Someone Who knows everything about everything/everyone that exists.​

I’m not sure I understand what some are asserting regarding the computer analogy in the above, but assuming such a thing did have the ability to access data: it appears to me that all we'd be describing is some form of artificial intelligence programmed to "believe" that the knowledge it knows at any given moment = all knowledge. In reality, of course, it would never know all that may be known about everything that exists, but merely know all there is to know, which is problematical, about the knowledge it possesses at any given moment.

This seems this is right, though it's certainly possible that I might have expressed something either here or elsewhere imperfectly.

My apologies, I should have been clearer in my challenge, but I was talking to someone who barely understands logic, and I let my language slip.

The problem is that axioms are logical truths, that does not make them automatically universal truths outside the realm of logic. I do not see any evidence that the universe is constrained by our ideas of logic. In fact, since logic can prove things that are demonstrably false, I see exactly the opposite. In order for something to be universally true, not just logically axiomatic, it would have to apply, without exception, every where in the universe.

Given the existence of black holes, which actually break down all the laws of physics, but are still part of the universe, no physical law we know is universal.
Assuming the existence of a supernatural being that created the universe, and is thus beyond our ability to define, I refuse o believe that that being is in any way limited by our insistence that logical truths apply to him. Given that science has proven that the ability to make choices actually exists in living beings, and that I am incapable of explaining how someone can know all my choices before I make them and that I have free will, there must be some mechanism to not know my choices until after they are made. That means that I have to assume that being omniscient only applies to current and past knowledge, or that we don't actually understand the concept.

Besides, I already described a computer system that can collect all knowledge in the universe, yet not be aware of that knowledge.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you posit that logical absolutes are unaccounted for without a god which is an uncaused cause (which, you cant account for uncaused causes) you are being absurd.

You are asserting that logic is accounted for by something that is unaccounted for.

Double standard, and absurd.

How about if I posit that logical absolutes only exist because man created them?

 

[dblack]

Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.

Perhaps that is because philosophy is full of shit, and scientists deal in reality.

Free will exist, the universe is not deterministic. You can post every single philosophical argument you want to defend the idea that I am wrong, I will point to actual scientific evidence that contradicts you to prove the negative I just claimed.

The problem is coming up with a coherent conception of what "free will" even means. We overload it in fundamentally contradictory ways.

Are you defining free will as "will that is not deterministic"? If so, how does "not deterministic" differ from random?

And as far as the bolded part above, it's the most ignorant statement I think I've read from you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree. And I don't think that kind of free will really depends on the rejection of "determinism". Whether reality is tightly bound by physical laws, and thus strictly causal, or not, doesn't really having any bearing on the concept of free will you describe here. What you describe here is our ability make decisions, and that exists whether reality is fully predictable or not. And, when you dig into it, saying it's not predictable, contending that our innermost decisions are not bound by cause-and-effect - makes them weirdly meaningless. Why is it preferable to imagine that you choose good by random chance, rather than because you are a good person (because your parents taught you to be or because you learned it brings the most happiness or because ... etc, etc..) ?

Basically, it depends on the scale to which we apply it. One concept of determinism is that, if we restarted the universe again, we would get the exact same results. This is predetermination, and seems all but impossible given our current understanding of science.

Then we have the more limited concept of cause and effect, which has never actually been proven by science because we cannot think of a way to test it. This is sometimes called Laplace's demon because he was the first to explain the idea that, if we could somehow measure the position and moment of every atom in the universe at a given moment we would be able to determine everything that happened in the past, and everything that will happen in the future, simply by applying the laws of classical mechanics. Given the current understanding of quantum mechanics, I think we can see why this presents some problems.

Then we have adequate determinism, which is close to what is favored by Hawkings. This is the idea that, on the average, quantum events cancel out in the macroscopic world. This allows us to apply the rules of classical mechanics to the universe, and pretty much ignore the times when it doesn't work out as statistical blips. Ultimately, Heisenberg still wins with uncertainty.

By the way, I can actually use various quantum effects to prove that God does not see everything.

Ultimately, determinism is a philosophical argument that doesn't belong in the same realm as science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is coming up with a coherent conception of what "free will" even means. We overload it in fundamentally contradictory ways.

Are you defining free will as "will that is not deterministic"? If so, how does "not deterministic" differ from random?

And as far as the bolded part above, it's the most ignorant statement I think I've read from you.

It is actually pretty simple to define free will, it is the ability to make choices outside of the constraints of fate or necessity. Scientifically, I would define it as the ability to make choices that are counter to the theory that we are hardwired by biology.

Philosophy, at its best, is defined as the study of the nature of knowledge and existence. Sorry, but that is pure arrogance, philosophy is bullshit.

 

[dblack]

The problem is coming up with a coherent conception of what "free will" even means. We overload it in fundamentally contradictory ways.

Are you defining free will as "will that is not deterministic"? If so, how does "not deterministic" differ from random?

And as far as the bolded part above, it's the most ignorant statement I think I've read from you.

It is actually pretty simple to define free will, it is the ability to make choices outside of the constraints of fate or necessity. Scientifically, I would define it as the ability to make choices that are counter to the theory that we are hardwired by biology.

That's neither simple nor clear, and still doesn't address my question.

Philosophy, at its best, is defined as the study of the nature of knowledge and existence. Sorry, but that is pure arrogance, philosophy is bullshit.

Wow. Seriously, that's just sad to see.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are we somehow pre-programmed via our DNA so that our every thought, physical response, and action is already determined from the moment of conceptions and there is nothing we can do to alter that? The thing we call mind/soul instinctively rejects that concept, but of course that could be part of the programming. Which does beg the question: is there then a programmer?

I think our conception of determinism is fundamentally flawed. First of all, I don't think 'determined' and 'pre-determined' are necessarily the same thing. That turns into a pretty subtle argument, so I won't get into it unless you're interested, but it does make a difference.

Which, via empirical experience, logic, reason, and ability to discern, we accept that we have a mind/soul that is able to reason, to understand, to accept, to reject, to choose, to go against its own nature, and to grow and develop and improve and expand in knowledge. And while some will succumb to indoctrination and coercion and brain washing and status quo, some have ability to think outside the box and reject the conventional wisdom and see that there are better and different ways to think, to understand, to explore, to be.

And that, is the basic definition of free will. That which we are and choose to be apart from what any others or any God ordains that we should or must be.

I agree. And I don't think that kind of free will really depends on the rejection of "determinism". Whether reality is tightly bound by physical laws, and thus strictly causal, or not, doesn't really having any bearing on the concept of free will you describe here. What you describe here is our ability make decisions, and that exists whether reality is fully predictable or not. And, when you dig into it, saying it's not predictable, contending that our innermost decisions are not bound by cause-and-effect - makes them weirdly meaningless. Why is it preferable to imagine that you choose good by random chance, rather than because you are a good person (because your parents taught you to be or because you learned it brings the most happiness or because ... etc, etc..) ?

Re the bolded part, we may have to have a wee bit of a friendly argument about that.

Yesterday or the day before, I was debating another member who contends that if knowledge is not demonstrable, then it is inconsequential and essentially meaningless. I am 100% certain that my disagreement with him about that is on point and so far nobody has challenged my rationale for why I think I'm on point about that.

And now you say that our decisions that are not bound by cause and effect are weirdly meaningless? Can you make a rationale for that? My anonymous act of random kindness when the recipient is not even aware of what is done for him is meaningless? Or are you saying that if there is no effect as a result of the decision that it is meaningless? How would we know?

I have always preached (given opportunity to do so) that there is no knowledge that is not worth having. Some things I read and quickly set aside as it has absolutely no relevance or interest to me. And then maybe years later, something comes up in which that morsel of knowledge is important and I am wiser than I would have been had I never read that 'uninteresting' bit of information all those years ago. How do we know the short range or long range effects of what we say, how we behave, what we write? Most people have no clue who they are a role model to or what will have an unexpected and unanticipated impact on another person or something. I don't think we have to have a specific reason or an end result in mind when we choose good over evil. We don't have to know what the cause or effect will be.

And I don't think it makes any difference WHY we choose good or evil. The result will be the same whether by culture/conditioning/education or by reasoning apart from everything else. My argument there is that I believe I have observed and experienced reason and logic that is apart from and even counter to a person's culture/conditioning/education and while all of us will be influenced by our culture/conditioning/education, I believe we also are given free will to think and act outside of those influences and/or expectations.

I have a dinner date now so won't be able to respond for awhile. But I shall return.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But in order for one to know everything, wouldn't one necessarily know that one knew everything? It appears that you're leaving something out of everything.

There are actually things I know that I don't know I know because I don't remember them consciously. Given an omnipotent, omniscient, being, why should I put limits on what that being can do simply because logic, which is a human created tool, tells me that it makes sense?

Well, certainly, there's no argument about the emboldened. We're all in the same boat there. But ultimately the mechanism by which we recognize that to be true is the principle of identity, namely, the law of contradiction, not merely by way of experience. In other words, we're aware from experience of the fact that we "forget" things. At times we've all tried to retrieve information that we know for a fact we had previously filed, but can't pull it from the file. What we do remember (or consciously know) is that we stored information about something, but can't recall precisely what we stored about that something. The distinction between remembering and forgetting is an operation of the law of contradiction. Experience provides for the medium that permits the distinction to be made, but it is the built-in principle of identity that tells us precisely what distinction we are making as opposed to making any number of other necessary distinctions.

The fundamental principles of logic are not human-created tools. They're a universally intrinsic component of our nature. As for putting limits on an omniscient-omnipotent mind: you're presupposing that the laws of logic are universally intrinsic, not human-created, as you recognize the distinction between the powers of apprehension and volition of finite minds and those of an omniscient mind. Ultimately, what you're suggesting is that the laws of logic are not contingent on God or derived from God because they cannot be an intrinsic component of His being.