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

[Quantum Windbag]

You and I are apparently talking about two different things.

Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

In any event, the fundamental laws of thought/apprehension (collectively, the logical principle of identity) in and of themselves are not man made, QW! That’s patently false! The logical principle of identity is the indispensable mechanism by which we deductively or inductively decipher and assimilate data. It's absolute, a universally intrinsic component of our nature.

It's the organic foundation for propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), first-order/predicate logic and the laws of inference, and a syllogism, for example, is just a framework for channeling logic.

Earlier you observed that it's possible to derive invalid conclusions from a logical framework or from some course of seemingly consistent logic. Sure. The reason that's true, of course, is that one or more of the premises is false, or they are all true, albeit, incongruently mated; and the mechanism by which we detect these kinds of problems or any number of logical fallacies is the logical principle of identity.

I won't quibble that there are elements of logic that exist outside of man's creation. That, however, does not change the fact that logic, in and of itself, is a tool made by men to define the realm of argument, and that it does not, in any way, limit the universe or god.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

... limited by

what a defeatist, crossing the void and finding the land on the other side as Christopher Columbus is not by chance but the necessity required by the Almighty's Commandant of Remission to the Everlasting, available for any creature so desiring the voyage.

at any time ...

.

Really?

I hate to point out the obvious, but there is actually a limit to what a human brain can process. Acknowledging that fact does not mean that people will never go to new places, it is simply reality.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I am reading your posts--well, maybe not every single word of the really long technical ones--but I'm getting the gist of them I think. I didn't mean to imply that we disagree on everything in this context. But we may have some degree of disagreement on the free will/omniscience part. I'm not sure that you and I see that in the same way. And it makes not one whit of difference if we do disagree.

I was just pointing out that I'm not a Calvinist.

If God exists in the eternal now, all existents and occurrences are before His "eyes" right now! From God's eternal perspective, David is slaying Goliath right now! He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. There is no past or future for Him. He is. I AM.

With that in mind I don't see why absolute omniscience necessarily precludes free will at all. I don't pretend to know if that's a perfect solution, but it's as close as we'll ever get to wrapping our heads around the whole of it, i.e., reconciling the various things the Bible claims to be happening simultaneously.

We simply can't comprehend the whole of what it means to live in the eternal now. We're not God. I put no constraints on the matter whatsoever. The Bible says God's absolutely omniscient, nothing is unknown to Him (and the intrinsic principle of identity asserts this), and yet free will persists, as does predestination.

You seem to think that absolute omniscience precludes free will. I don't.

I don't subscribe to Calvinism, and I know you don't either. But Calvinists (Presbyterians) don't hold that creaturely free will doesn't exist in terms of everyday life, but, rather, doesn't exist in terms of salvation. God predetermined from the beginning those who would be saved and those who would be damned without any regard to foreknowledge.

Martin Luther, by the way, flatly denied free will existed in any sense at all. He argued that the free will of the Bible merely alludes to the figment of our perceptual experience of things. But I believe the Bible teaches that it's a fact of creaturely reality, not merely an illusion.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You and I are apparently talking about two different things.

Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

In any event, the fundamental laws of thought/apprehension (collectively, the logical principle of identity) in and of themselves are not man made, QW! That’s patently false! The logical principle of identity is the indispensable mechanism by which we deductively or inductively decipher and assimilate data. It's absolute, a universally intrinsic component of our nature.

It's the organic foundation for propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), first-order/predicate logic and the laws of inference, and a syllogism, for example, is just a framework for channeling logic.

Earlier you observed that it's possible to derive invalid conclusions from a logical framework or from some course of seemingly consistent logic. Sure. The reason that's true, of course, is that one or more of the premises is false, or they are all true, albeit, incongruently mated; and the mechanism by which we detect these kinds of problems or any number of logical fallacies is the logical principle of identity.

I won't quibble that there are elements of logic that exist outside of man's creation. That, however, does not change the fact that logic, in and of itself, is a tool made by men to define the realm of argument, and that it does not, in any way, limit the universe or god.

For purposes of definition, this is unclear, unsatisfactory. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension, a.k.a., the three classical laws of logic (identity, contradiction and the excluded middle, collectively, the principle of identity) are intrinsic, universal, absolute, inescapable, hardwired. They are not man made.

This is the logic, in and of itself, at the base of all other logical formulations or frameworks for argumentation. Indeed, it is the first principle of knowledge, the essential mechanism of rational and moral thought. The Hebrews called it the essence of the tzelem elohim (in English, the image of God, in Latin, the Imago Dei) and the Greeks called it the theiotes logos (the divine word). It places no restraints on God whatsoever; rather, the principle of identity is an aspect of the very essence of God.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me. It seemed you agreed with it.

I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable. If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him. But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us. Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.

This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent. These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration. These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.

The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception. The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will. What do we do with this?

There are two views that I'm aware of: the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.

The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall. Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind. But the terms predestined and foreknowledge go to our perspective of time, not His. There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him. From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right now for Him. The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective. He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say. I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and intentions. He is here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.

The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.

I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.

I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me. The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.

Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.

For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind. For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom. And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.

Exodus 32:9-14:
(Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​

I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end. I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined. If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing. Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind. I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.

I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.

So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.

I kept it simple. That's as simple as it gets. The Bible asserts the following things: (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures. The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.

From where I'm standing the solution is beyond us and like you say we don't have all the facts yet. My reading of the good Book is that we are to trust God with these things in the meantime. I believe it'll all make sense later.

Just so. The Foreknowledge view coupled with the construct of the eternal Now is the closest we'll ever get to understanding that matter.

 

[G.T.]

Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."

How many times do I have to explain that logic does not apply to the universe?

That said, I challenge you to show me anywhere in the rules of logic that something has to be quantifiable to be true.

The part where her assertion involves an amount of something genius

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

Don't hold your breath.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

Though from your exchange with Justin it appears that you don't actually think what QW's saying about logic is right, but this is important. And we need to be clear.

On the face of it, relative to what QW's asserting, the emboldened is all wrong, Fox. Horrifically wrong. And this goes to the next level of realization regarding what the transcendental argument demonstrates, which I might as well get to now.

QW proves this idea is false in his very assertions. He necessarily presupposes that the claim in the major premise of the transcendental argument, for example, is true: the concomitant axiom that the laws of thought are absolutely and universally binding. That is to say, he necessarily presupposes that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally binding in order to make the very distinctions he's making about phenomena outside of our minds (see post #1164).

My question? Why does this have to be explained?

If the properties and processes of the cosmological order are not synchronized with the mechanism by which we are able to coherently communicate with one another, understand one another, how in the world could we know that the cosmological order were actually up to something other than what it appears to be communicating to us as filtered through this very same mechanism?

We can't see things any other way. We can't make diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive propositions true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. We can't escape the cognitively binding apprehensions of the logical principle of identity.

What could possibly be the evidence for something that is contrary to what our minds could possibly perceive?

There is no such evidence whatsoever. On the contrary, the evidence overwhelming supports the axiom that the principle of identity is universally applicable.

QW's contention is just wrong.

This mechanism is not man made. It's an inherent part of our nature. We're an inherent part of nature. The principle is an inherent part of all nature. There's no grounds whatsoever to assert as he does that we are hopelessly incapable of ascertaining the truth about the phenomenal realities of the cosmological order. We have been doing it for centuries with greater and greater accuracy as our store of knowledge has increased, and we will go on doing it with greater and greater accuracy for the same reason.

The transcendental argument cannot be falsified. Any argument launched against it will necessarily presuppose the principle of identity, which strongly recommends that God must be; that is, an indivisible, immutable ground of universal Truth must exist. What platform within the divisible, mutable cosmological order could possibly account for this?

G.T.'s delusions of grandeur notwithstanding (posts #1148 and #1151), the major premise of the transcendental argument is not merely some curiosity that's eerily unassailable or a mere academic exercise in logic. Justin is right to laugh at him. And by the way, being that it's logical proof is objectively and universally apparent, it is demonstrable knowledge.

And allow me to further illustrate why it (like all other axiomatic truths) is demonstrable knowledge.

How do we know that Newtonian physics "break down"? How do we know that the theories of general and special relativity "break down"? How do we known that we have barely scratched the surface of quantum physics? How do we know, for specifically, that while the recycling cosmos theory eloquently accounts for the conservation of energy, but still doesn't resolve the matter of how time itself began in the first place, as someone on this thread got into his head somehow?

By the categorical distinctions of the universally applicable principle of identity, that's how! It obviously prevails at both the proscriptive and the descriptive levels of human apprehension.

Insofar as they work or hold up, insofar as they are understood: Newtonian physics, the general and special theories of relativity, and quantum physics are logical. Delta4Emabasy in posts #1068 and #1072 has the right of it. And while I disagree with his deterministic view, which is ultimately premised on the philosophical apriority of ontological naturalism, dblack has the right of it when he asserts that any given person's view of the utility/limits of science is ultimately bottomed on that person's philosophy of science. Philosophy proceeds science. Science is contingent. And the nature of QW's assertions is philosophical, not scientific.

What’s QW's error?

He's conflating our lack of knowledge with an imaginary breakdown of the absolute axiom of human cognition! This is the human in the gap fallacy.

What are we in search for? A unifying theory for everything, that's what. What are we lacking? The right thinking tool? No! We're lacking the knowledge that would resolve the apparent contradictions we recognize via a fully functional and universally applicable thinking tool. This thinking tool puts absolutely no limits are our ability to decipher the cosmos.

Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of reveled religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality. They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the apparent substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena. —Rawlings​

 

[G.T.]

You can type eight different languages and 600 paragraphs, the tag argument is still a canard, and its equally a canard that any argument against it proves it.

The tag argument is giggle worthy, so you mock me I mock you la Dee fuckin DA.

 

[BreezeWood]

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.

... limited by

what a defeatist, crossing the void and finding the land on the other side as Christopher Columbus is not by chance but the necessity required by the Almighty's Commandant of Remission to the Everlasting, available for any creature so desiring the voyage.

at any time ...

.

So you think God required Columbus to sail west from the Port at Palos in Spain that fateful August day? Or what are you saying?

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.

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


the initiative is from within the individual to accomplish the timeless goal granted their Spirit by their physical presence.

perhapse you might better have asked by your account the sailor's stupidity for not waiting for a powered vessel than the one he chose ?

 

[BreezeWood]

... limited by

what a defeatist, crossing the void and finding the land on the other side as Christopher Columbus is not by chance but the necessity required by the Almighty's Commandant of Remission to the Everlasting, available for any creature so desiring the voyage.

at any time ...

.

Really?

I hate to point out the obvious, but there is actually a limit to what a human brain can process. Acknowledging that fact does not mean that people will never go to new places, it is simply reality.

I hate to point out the obvious, but there is actually a limit to what a human brain can process. Acknowledging that fact does not mean that people will never go to new places, it is simply reality.

.
how would you know without crossing the void first as Columbus to set foot on what was then to be discovered ?

speaking of Admission to the Everlasting.

.

 

[Justin Davis]

I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable. If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him. But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us. Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.

This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent. These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration. These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.

The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception. The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will. What do we do with this?

There are two views that I'm aware of: the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.

The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall. Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind. But the terms predestined and foreknowledge go to our perspective of time, not His. There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him. From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right now for Him. The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective. He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say. I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and intentions. He is here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.

The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.

I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.

I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me. The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.

Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.

For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind. For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom. And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.

Exodus 32:9-14:
(Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​

I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end. I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined. If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing. Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind. I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.

I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.

So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.

I kept it simple. That's as simple as it gets. The Bible asserts the following things: (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures. The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.

From where I'm standing the solution is beyond us and like you say we don't have all the facts yet. My reading of the good Book is that we are to trust God with these things in the meantime. I believe it'll all make sense later.

Just so. The Foreknowledge view coupled with the construct of the eternal Now is the closest we'll ever get to understanding that matter.

I've never thought about the issue in terms of a foreknowledge view. I didn't know about any formal names for it, but one of my first Bible lessons was a study of the names of God and their meanings. Jehovah (or Yahweh) means, alternately, "He who causes to be" or "I am, that I am" depending on the context. The study delved into the understanding of the God of the eternal now, so that's not new to me. And yes it eventually got into what this means to the issue of omniscience and free will, so I do follow you. I agree that when we keep the timelessness of the God of the Bible in mind it gives us a feel for how the two things can coexist after all, though it also has the feel that we are in need of more info in order to fully appreciate why. Like you I've got no problem with believing they coexist in the absolute sense, but I think one has to spend some time contemplating on the eternal now concept of existing or being to get there. I absolutely believe that God helps us to see the matter by letting us know that He exists in the eternal now. I now realize that you are obviously a Christian not a Deist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For purposes of definition, this is unclear, unsatisfactory. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension, a.k.a., the three classical laws of logic (identity, contradiction and the excluded middle, collectively, the principle of identity) are intrinsic, universal, absolute, inescapable, hardwired. They are not man made.

This is the logic, in and of itself, at the base of all other logical formulations or frameworks for argumentation. Indeed, it is the first principle of knowledge, the essential mechanism of rational and moral thought. The Hebrews called it the essence of the tzelem elohim (in English, the image of God, in Latin, the Imago Dei) and the Greeks called it the theiotes logos (the divine word). It places no restraints on God whatsoever; rather, the principle of identity is an aspect of the very essence of God.

Classical logic is based on the three classical laws of thought.

1. The law of identity. For any proposition A: A=A
   
2. The law of non-contradiction. For all Not A=(Not -A)
   
3. The law of the excluded middle. For all A: A or -A

The problem is that the universe really doesn't care about what we think, even if we consider it to be universally true. As an example, there is a particle in physics called a majorana fermion. These particles have a rather unusual property, they are both matter and anti matter at the same time. In other words, each of these particles is both A and -A at the same time, which clearly violates the law of the excluded middle.

I refuse to accept anything as universally true simply because it makes sense to me, I need evidence to support it.

 

[Justin Davis]

You can type eight different languages and 600 paragraphs, the tag argument is still a canard, and its equally a canard that any argument against it proves it.

The tag argument is giggle worthy, so you mock me I mock you la Dee fuckin DA.

He didn't mock you. He proved you wrong and you just proved that you can't think in any other terms but the absolute rules of organic logic again. You mock yourself. Kant was just fooling around?. That makes sense. Not. A canard is a false or groundless belief. So why can't you prove it wrong? You can't because it's logically valid. You're fooling yourself. If I can get it, anybody can.

 

[G.T.]

Its proven a naked assertion, not proven 'wrong.'

Its not ultimately justified that logic or knowledge requires an eternal mind.

You can support it, but not prove it, which is why as a premise it fails for building a case.

 

[dblack]

Insofar as they work or hold up, insofar as they are understood: Newtonian physics, the general and special theories of relativity, and quantum physics are logical. Delta4Emabasy in posts #1068 and #1072 has the right of it. And while I disagree with his deterministic view, which is ultimately premised on the philosophical apriority of ontological naturalism, dblack has the right of it when he asserts that any given person's view of the utility/limits of science is ultimately bottomed on that person's philosophy of science. Philosophy proceeds science. Science is contingent. And the nature of QW's assertions is philosophical, not scientific.

As a matter of clarification, while I will admit to a naturalistic bias, I don't have a "deterministic view" - ie I don't think the world is strictly deterministic. My point is simply that it has nothing to do with the issue of free will. An indeterministic reality might be "free" of causal dependencies, but offers us nothing like "will".

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Insofar as they work or hold up, insofar as they are understood: Newtonian physics, the general and special theories of relativity, and quantum physics are logical. Delta4Emabasy in posts #1068 and #1072 has the right of it. And while I disagree with his deterministic view, which is ultimately premised on the philosophical apriority of ontological naturalism, dblack has the right of it when he asserts that any given person's view of the utility/limits of science is ultimately bottomed on that person's philosophy of science. Philosophy proceeds science. Science is contingent. And the nature of QW's assertions is philosophical, not scientific.

As a matter of clarification, while I will admit to a naturalistic bias, I don't have a "deterministic view" - ie I don't think the world is strictly deterministic. My point is simply that it has nothing to do with the issue of free will. An indeterministic reality might be "free" of causal dependencies, but offers us nothing like "will".

I apologize. I misread you. Wouldn't be the first time. LOL! We can talk about this more so that I might rightly understand you on that score.

 

[sealybobo]

I was watching a show the other day on the Pharoah's and they had such details when it came to this time in history. Actual historical record or who the Pharoah's were, what life was like back then, drawings or writings, etc.

My point is, when you see how they lived back 7000 years ago, it doesn't seem that long ago. They had laws, kings, libraries, schools, societies, doctors, etc. Doesn't seem that much different than now.

Now think about stories like Noah living 350 years or Jonah living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and living and all the other stupid stories in Christianity. None of it jives with reality or history. So clearly all made up.

They have actual historical records of Pharaoh's being descended from gods, yet you want to quibble about the Bible saying Noah lived 350 years, even thogh the Bible doesn't make that claim?

Wow.

There is strong evidence they did. Or aliens. We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods. They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.

I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.

 

[sealybobo]

Of course we want to you fucking idiot!

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshiping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

Damn, that post must have drove the average IQ of the universe down a full point the moment you typed it.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but philosophy has spent thousands of years developing logical proofs that show god exists, and have even used logic to show what he must be like. Despite your massive ignorance, the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and perfect god you spend so much time railing against is not a product of Christianity, he is a product of logic.

If only they taught basic history in school.

Are you a Christian or do you just believe in generic god? Because if you are a christian, just realize that if the Jesus story were provable, the rest of us would convert tomorrow. If it was provable, there would be no jews or muslims because your religion would be obvious to all.

And if you are not a Christian then you realize that religions are made up and so too could god be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is strong evidence they did. Or aliens. We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods. They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.

I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.

There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?

If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Yes:

It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake. So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him. We literally see design wherever we look. When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source. The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.

There is strong evidence they did. Or aliens. We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods. They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.

I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.

There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?

If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.

Think about it.