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

[Quantum Windbag]

But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time? What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.

Excuse me? I don't understand time, and have no real concept of it, which means my concepts cannot limit God. The only person I know of who comes close to actually understanding it is hawking, and he is still not there.

As for me limiting God, all I am doing is pointing out that the Bible doesn't support the popular, entirely philosophical, definition of God. That doesn't put any limits on Him, it just points out how stupid people can be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, when we were younger and more gullible, we believed like you believe. It wasn't until we got older and wiser than we wised up. We are able to put aside what we want to believe and only go with what is believable.

It all seems made up to me Did Jesus exist

Nice to see you resorting to sites that support your personal beliefs over the facts that clearly make you look like an idiot. That, by defintion, makes you a zealot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I tried to explain what you call the "infinite simultaneousness" thing to Q.W.. I've never even heard of anyone arguing against the organic rules of logic with things like electromagnetic radiation. Either I'm right or I'm crazy but the organic rules of logic don't prohibit things like that as far as I know. I couldn't find anything on the Internet where anyone else has argued something like that, though somebody put a video on this thread where the atheist hints at something like that but doesn't say what it is. But it's just wrong either way as far as I can see. If this is the way we see things, how could we be able to see these things if the rules didn't allow it? What 'am I missing?

I am not arguing against the organic rules of logic. Even though I do, occasionally, enjoy it, I rarely wast my time arguing against something that doesn't exist. What I am doing is pointing out that the laws of thought do not apply to the universe, nor do they limit our understanding of the universe to what we can perceive.

Perhaps your problem is thinking that the laws of thought are something more than they are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The transcendental argument, to be valid, forces one to accept a premise that has never been demonstrated to be factual.

That sounds a lot like dark matter, dark energy, loop quantum gravity, and string theory.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD.R., can you explain the spontaneous thing in better detail?

f(x) = lim (1/x) = 0.
x --> ∞


This means that the function f systematically increases the value of x toward the limit of infinity, so that 1 is divided by the systematically increased value of x, which equals an ever-smaller number approaching 0. This function yields an infinite set of increasingly larger numbers (or divisors) for x tending toward ∞ and an infinite set of ever-smaller numbers (or quotients) approaching 0. In other words, = 0 actually means "near 0" as the division of any whole is not the process of making it fade into nonexistent. The whole is still "there." It's just divided into an unknown number of pieces. We don't actually know what happens when we get to infinity as infinity in terms of a specific number is undefined. Rather, infinity is simultaneously all the numbers there are unto infinity.

Hence, the input-output portion of the function's expression can be expressed as "(1/x) = n approaching 0."


Let D = the infinite set of increasingly larger divisors tending toward x --> ∞ of function f.

Let Q = the infinite set of ever-smaller quotients approaching 0 of function f.

Thus, for example:


lim
x --> ∞ ∈ D
___________
1
10
100
1000 . . .



(1/x = n approaching 0) ∈ Q
___________________________________
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001 . . .


Also:

D = {1, 10, 100, 1000 . . . }; Q = {1.0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 . . . }


Now many won't care about this, but if you copy and paste this, and take some quality time to contemplate the various aspects of the concept and the results in the light of the perfect attributes of God, including things like love and justice, you may see dimensionally new things about Him that will blow your mind and demolish any number of preconceived notions that routinely get in our way as finite minds trapped in a perceptually three-dimensional construct within the dimensional construct of time from seeing just how incredibly and awesomely unlimited He is. You can't grasp all of it, of course, not even close, but you can get a feel for it as never before this way.

 

[dblack]

/me ponders time cube.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually, when we were younger and more gullible, we believed like you believe. It wasn't until we got older and wiser than we wised up. We are able to put aside what we want to believe and only go with what is believable.

It all seems made up to me Did Jesus exist

Nice to see you resorting to sites that support your personal beliefs over the facts that clearly make you look like an idiot. That, by defintion, makes you a zealot.

I couldn't find anything to back up my position on this site

Conservapedia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

I tried to explain what you call the "infinite simultaneousness" thing to Q.W.. I've never even heard of anyone arguing against the organic rules of logic with things like electromagnetic radiation. Either I'm right or I'm crazy but the organic rules of logic don't prohibit things like that as far as I know. I couldn't find anything on the Internet where anyone else has argued something like that, though somebody put a video on this thread where the atheist hints at something like that but doesn't say what it is. But it's just wrong either way as far as I can see. If this is the way we see things, how could we be able to see these things if the rules didn't allow it? What 'am I missing?

I rarely wast my time arguing against something that doesn't exist. .

But you do waste a lot of time arguing for something that doesn't exist.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This does not violate the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third). You're just not thinking clearly. If the Majorana fermion did violate any aspect of the principle of identity, we wouldn't be able to detect its existence. In other words, your argument fails because its premise falsely identifies the entity perceived.

The fact of the intrinsically organic principle of identity cannot be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it's the intrinsically organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the proscriptive and descriptive levels of apprehension. You're still thinking about the fundamental law of thought/apprehension as if it were some contrived entity existing apart from our being.

What is it?

The Majorana particle ≠ matter-not-matter, because it's always matter.

The Majorana particle ≠ antimatter-not-antimatter, because it's always anitmatter.​

Rather:

Let Y = matter; X = antimatter.

Hence, the Majorana particle = Y and X simultaneously, or A = A (Y and X simultaneously), or, simply, the Majorana particle is its own antiparticle.​

That's the whole of what it is, as opposed to what it's not and as distinguished from everything else. That's the discrete, positive form or proposition of the single predicate.

The logical principle of identity begins with identifying what the thing is. This fundamental law of human cognition and its analytical elaborations do not assert that something which is simultaneously positive and negative is inexplicable; rather, for all A: A OR ~A is inexplicable. And they obviously don't impede our ability to perceive that such a thing does in fact exist. Your error is to divide the whole of something into something it's not. It's your A and ~A that's off:

For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) ≠ ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter),


or


For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) or ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter).​

This is not the first time I've answered this objection.

This is exactly why I say all philosophy is bullshit. I used the existence of particles that are their own objects to show that the laws of thought do not apply to the universe itself. You responded by claiming that, if something violates the laws of thought we wouldn't be able to see it.

FYI, the human brain is incapable of perceiving all sorts of things that exist in nature. We can, however, think of ways to prove that they exist by tracking them with things that we can imagine and build. The laws of thought may, or may not, apply to all beings that think, but they do not apply outside of our brains.

But, QW, you still don't consciously understand the matter rightly.

Look. The intrinsically organic laws of thought/apprehension have been formally defined in philosophical treatises by various philosophers, but they are not philosophy, a philosophy or even a philosophical construct in and of themselves.

Generically: What is the thing that exists?

The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension—collectively, the principle of identity—are the universally absolute and intrinsically organic realities of human cognition.

There's nothing controversial about this. Human beings have always known this. Human beings have always asserted this and have never asserted anything else but this, except in terms of how it might all be an illusion. There is nothing in the theological, philosophical or scientific literate of history that disputes this, for everybody knows that human consciousness necessarily presupposes existence and that the principle of identity is the very first epistemological-ontological fact of conscious reality for humans.

There is only the confusion in the minds of those who are not thinking clearly.


For the second time on this thread: why does this have to be explained?

You know this! Everybody knows this!

As for the centuries-old debates of whether or not (1) the logical principle of identity universally applies to all of existence or (2) entails actual free will or merely apparent free will (the problem of the body-mind or brain-soul dichotomy) are entirely different issues. Objectively speaking, whatever the ultimate truth may be about these things: everybody knows that everybody necessarily presupposes the actualities of the principle of identity every time they debate the subsequent complexities of anything else that is arguably debatable under the Sun.


But there is no debate regarding the fact of the principle of identity, i.e., that it is an intrinsically and universally organic fact of human nature, an intrinsically and universally organic fact of human consciousness.

And that is why everybody knows, in spite of the banalities of post-modern culture—mere slogans, erroneous, unexamined claims obscuring the actualities of self-awareness—that the claim in the major premise of the transcendental argument, for example, cannot be logically falsified, at the very least with regard to the organic laws of thought, as any attempt to falsify them is necessarily the major premise of an argument that will logically prove the validity of the major premise regarding them it every friggin' time! That fact of human cognition is the independently objective demonstration of the premise's validity in addition to the axiomatic nature of self-awareness.

The principle of identity entails the first principles of epistemological (knowledge) and ontological (being) reality of human consciousness. And what is the first item of knowledge and being at the very top of the list?

Answer: Self-awareness! The awareness (knowledge) that I exist (being)!

Every discrete instance of knowledge is also, simultaneously, an instance of being. The first principle of identity, therefore, presupposes, anticipates, predicts that any given A, including material existents, might potentially be at least two or more things simultaneously all the way up to infinity: A = A (alpha . . . omega simultaneously). ∞ = A (all possible existents simultaneously), or ∞ = A (all numbers simultaneously), all of which are of a single predicate.

It is understood that any given material whole can be divided an indefinite number of times. The operation of division by infinity may be coherently expressed as a mathematical function, the quotient of which is an infinite set of values approaching 0 of a single predicate.

Descartes is not the first person to wake up one morning and say to himself, "Well, looky here, I think, or I'm self-aware; therefore, I exist.

"I am a finite self-awareness that is not the origin of its own self-awareness. As a finite self-awareness, I'm necessarily cognizant of the perfectly coherent potentiality of an infinite self-awareness that would necessarily be an A of unlimited power and, as such, the ground of an infinite number of possibilities simultaneously of a single predicate, save one thing. This potential ground of an infinite number of possibilities could not also be the ground of a limited number of possibilities: A = B, or God = NOT-God. That would be absurd."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I couldn't find anything to back up my position on this site

Conservapedia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I suppose you think that proves how smart you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But you do waste a lot of time arguing for something that doesn't exist.

Only in your imagination. If you check back through the thread you will see I never once argued for anything, which is why you are always confused when you try to argue with me, you don't know what I believe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But, QW, you still don't consciously understand the matter rightly.

Sigh.

Look. The intrinsically organic laws of thought/apprehension have been formally defined in philosophical treatises by various philosophers, but they are not philosophy, a philosophy or even a philosophical construct in and of themselves.

That is exactly what they are.

Generically: What is the thing that exists?

The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension—collectively, the principle of identity—are the universally absolute and intrinsically organic realities of human cognition.

There's nothing controversial about this. Human beings have always known this. Human beings have always asserted this and have never asserted anything else but this, except in terms of how it might all be an illusion. There is nothing in the theological, philosophical or scientific literate of history that disputes this, for everybody knows that human consciousness necessarily presupposes existence and that the principle of identity is the very first epistemological-ontological fact of conscious reality for humans.

There is only the confusion in the minds of those who are not thinking clearly.


For the second time on this thread: why does this have to be explained?

You know this! Everybody knows this!

I know no such thing, even philosophy questions these axioms. Constructive logic, AKA intuitionistic logic, does not assume something is always true.

Semantically, intuitionistic logic is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are not admitted as axioms. Excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not hold universally as they do with classical logic.

Several semantics for intuitionistic logic have been studied. One semantic mirrors classical Boolean-valued semantics but usesHeyting algebras in place of Boolean algebras. Another semantic uses Kripke models.

Intuitionistic logic is practically useful because its restrictions produce proofs that have the existence property, making it also suitable for other forms of mathematical constructivism. Informally, this means that if you have a constructive proof that an object exists, you can turn that constructive proof into an algorithm for generating an example of it.

Intuitionistic logic - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I prefer not to limit my thinking by assuming that only one type of logic is valid.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Continued from post #1249.

The issue is not whether or not there be any actual substance behind the inherent apprehension of identity that any given A, including material existents, might be two or more things simultaneously, or whether or not there be any actual substance behind the notion of the infinite nature of the Deity that exists in our minds. The point is that the principle of identity alerted us to at least one instance of such a thing from the beginning, namely, the instance of self-awareness and the existence of any given object of one's self-awareness.

The existence of such things do not contradict the principle of identity.

Also, the principle of identity readily apprehends the construct of infinity in terms of comprehensively simultaneous attributes of a single predicate. Thinkers from centuries ago who fully understood the implications of the principle of identity, would not have been surprised at all by the discovery of things like electromagnetic radiation or the Majorana particle. In fact, they expected it.

More tomorrow on this. . . .

 

[Justin Davis]

But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time? What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.

Excuse me? I don't understand time, and have no real concept of it, which means my concepts cannot limit God. The only person I know of who comes close to actually understanding it is hawking, and he is still not there.

As for me limiting God, all I am doing is pointing out that the Bible doesn't support the popular, entirely philosophical, definition of God. That doesn't put any limits on Him, it just points out how stupid people can be.

Well I thought you believed in free will but that God wouldn't be completely omniscient in some sense because we couldn't have free will if He was. That suggested to me that you would be going on the way we commonly experience time, past, present, future, nothing heavy duty. But I admit that I apparently still don't really understand why you see it that way then. I'm not talking about God in the philosophical sense as the idea that He exists in the eternal now and is the God of infinite possibilities is biblical, though I suppose some philosophers have inferred that from thought. I don't know. But the only persons I know who have rejected this biblical understanding of God are philosophes for the reason I thought you were expressing. I think there's a misunderstanding here. There are things that can be known about God from the general revelation or from the creation itself through thought without the Bible. The Bible tells us this and even tells us what those things are. Philosophers have seen these things too. I've got no use for the things some have "seen" past these universals. Every philosopher I've looked at gets some if not most of these universals right and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.

 

[sealybobo]

But you do waste a lot of time arguing for something that doesn't exist.

Only in your imagination. If you check back through the thread you will see I never once argued for anything, which is why you are always confused when you try to argue with me, you don't know what I believe.

And really what does it matter what you believe or the Catholic Church says? It's what you can prove and that's nothing. I noticed I posted a bunch of very interesting stuff yesterday and asked questions and no one replied back. I suspect because they can't refute the information. For example I explained how every word written in the bible was written on hearsay and I asked, "if Jesus was so well known near and far at the time, how come none of the Jewish historians wrote about him? There were lots in that area at the time and no one wrote about it. Nor is it in the history books where Herod killed every first born son.

So without organized religions lies, what else do you really have other than wishful thinking and blissful ignorance?

 

[sealybobo]

If Adam & Eve & Moses & Noah & Jonah & Jesus are all allegories, the whole things made up. Wake up people. Time to evolve.

 

[BreezeWood]

Every philosopher I've looked at gets some if not most of these universals right and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.

... and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.


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


have you established the bible is a Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God ?

which specific "claim" in the bible is the definitive proof that answers the question where as a non biblical proof would not suffice ?

.

 

[sealybobo]

No being that is perfect would need to be worshipped! I love that!!!

 

[G.T.]

cosmological argument.........

f-u-c-k-i-n-g d-e-s-t-r-o-y-e-d

 

[Foxfyre]

cosmological argument.........

f-u-c-k-i-n-g d-e-s-t-r-o-y-e-d

Not at all. I listened to the whole debate as a debate judge and the argument for the cosmological theory won hands down. The opposition reverted to the vague and less arguable position that no God has to exist in order for the universe to exist. The pro cosmological side did not argue that God has to exist but put the concept on the basis of probability--something the opposition neither addressed nor was able to dispute.