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

[PratchettFan]

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.

Why? What are you comparing it to?

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

The connection is obvious. Try creator, creation or universe, cause. But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection. You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective. You start with an open mind and then close it. But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe". Evidence of what? Evidence that the universe exists? You don't really say. You just say its not valid. Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause? You don't really tell us anything about that either.

I don't see how it is obvious.

What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?

I'd say that M.D.R. pretty much hammered that nail. I don't mean to be impolite. But I'm new here and I wouldn't want to repeat what's already been said. I'd put the question to him. He's better qualified. I'm a beginner. I read through the thread. Your post just struck me as being a little odd in its logic, but I thought maybe you were getting at something I've never thought about before. I try to keep an open mind on this stuff. I think its fascinating.

 

[PratchettFan]

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

The connection is obvious. Try creator, creation or universe, cause. But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection. You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective. You start with an open mind and then close it. But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe". Evidence of what? Evidence that the universe exists? You don't really say. You just say its not valid. Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause? You don't really tell us anything about that either.

I don't see how it is obvious.

What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?

I'd say that M.D.R. pretty much hammered that nail. I don't mean to be impolite. But I'm new here and I wouldn't want to repeat what's already been said. I'd put the question to him. He's better qualified. I'm a beginner. I read through the thread. Your post just struck me as being a little odd in its logic, but I thought maybe you were getting at something I've never thought about before. I try to keep an open mind on this stuff. I think its fascinating.

I did read it and the only evidence presented was that the universe is here. Unless there is some evidence to indicate there must be a creator, then the only thing the universe's existence proves is that it exists.

 

[S.J.]

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.

Why? What are you comparing it to?

Chaos.

 

[Justin Davis]

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

The connection is obvious. Try creator, creation or universe, cause. But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection. You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective. You start with an open mind and then close it. But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe". Evidence of what? Evidence that the universe exists? You don't really say. You just say its not valid. Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause? You don't really tell us anything about that either.

I don't see how it is obvious.

What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?

I'd say that M.D.R. pretty much hammered that nail. I don't mean to be impolite. But I'm new here and I wouldn't want to repeat what's already been said. I'd put the question to him. He's better qualified. I'm a beginner. I read through the thread. Your post just struck me as being a little odd in its logic, but I thought maybe you were getting at something I've never thought about before. I try to keep an open mind on this stuff. I think its fascinating.

I did read it and the only evidence presented was that the universe is here. Unless there is some evidence to indicate there must be a creator, then the only thing the universe's existence proves is that it exists.

Sorry, I had to go back and find the posts again. Read posts #99 and #106. He's talking about a lot more than that. You apparently missed them. They're killer posts, especially #106, at least for me because it cleared up some things for me that I had been wondering about. Also, I've never heard anything about the anthropic principle before as it relates to the idea of a multiverse. But sure enough, I google it. Makes a lot of sense to me. The teleological argument is a whole lot more compelling than I thought, and I didn't realize before reading his post that the arguments are organic in a scientific sense. This stuff is cool. I liked one of your posts a lot too. Also, QW, S.J. and Fox said some pretty cool things. There were others I liked too. These are just the ones that stick out in my mind. The key is understanding the link between the existence of the universe and the existence of intelligence in the universe. In other words, the link between the first and the contemplations of the second.

 

[ninja007]

God created science. God is proved BY science every day.

 

[ninja007]

God created science. God is proved BY science every day.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.

Why? What are you comparing it to?

Chaos.

What chaos?

 

[PratchettFan]

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

The connection is obvious. Try creator, creation or universe, cause. But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection. You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective. You start with an open mind and then close it. But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe". Evidence of what? Evidence that the universe exists? You don't really say. You just say its not valid. Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause? You don't really tell us anything about that either.

I don't see how it is obvious.

What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?

I'd say that M.D.R. pretty much hammered that nail. I don't mean to be impolite. But I'm new here and I wouldn't want to repeat what's already been said. I'd put the question to him. He's better qualified. I'm a beginner. I read through the thread. Your post just struck me as being a little odd in its logic, but I thought maybe you were getting at something I've never thought about before. I try to keep an open mind on this stuff. I think its fascinating.

I did read it and the only evidence presented was that the universe is here. Unless there is some evidence to indicate there must be a creator, then the only thing the universe's existence proves is that it exists.

Sorry, I had to go back and find the posts again. Read posts #99 and #106. He's talking about a lot more than that. You apparently missed them. They're killer posts, especially #106, at least for me because it cleared up some things for me that I had been wondering about. Also, I've never heard anything about the anthropic principle before as it relates to the idea of a multiverse. But sure enough, I google it. Makes a lot of sense to me. The teleological argument is a whole lot more compelling than I thought, and I didn't realize before reading his post that the arguments are organic in a scientific sense. This stuff is cool. I liked one of your posts a lot too. Also, QW, S.J. and Fox said some pretty cool things. There were others I liked too. These are just the ones that stick out in my mind. The key is understanding the link between the existence of the universe and the existence of intelligence in the universe. In other words, the link between the first and the contemplations of the second.

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

 

[PratchettFan]

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.

I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.

Nope, Pastor Rikurzhen is just a liar. He lies about atheists and claims that they believe in the "Religion of Liberalism". He has zero credibility.

I'm an Atheist moron and I don't believe in the Religion of Liberalism, you though do. You've replaced one religious belief with another. You therefore have no more of a legitimate claim to call yourself an Atheist than does a Christian who abandoned Christianity for Islam.

No, you are just a liar who has been exposed multiple times in several threads. Your fictional "Religion of Liberalism" only exists in your own feeble mind and those of your fellow conservative theists who preach this absurdity. You know absolutely nothing about atheism whatsoever because if you did you wouldn't be making that ridiculous allegation in the first place.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow! Now that's the juice. You just cleared up a few things for me. I'm a novice. But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics. The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants. What's the answer to that one?

The answer to that question is no, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible. The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.

One might as well ask the question can God not be God? Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The logical answer to these questions is no. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.

But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity and is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion God does not exist is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty because it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? A = B?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?

The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic. The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories: equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution. But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of revelational knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives. The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.

The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid. And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.

But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption isn't inherently contradictory. It just is as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.

(By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)

The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.

In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.

For example:

What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?

What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

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

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow! Now that's the juice. You just cleared up a few things for me. I'm a novice. But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics. The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants. What's the answer to that one?

The answer to that question is no, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible. The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.

One might as well ask the question can God not be God? Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The logical answer to these questions is no. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.

But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity and is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion God does not exist is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty because it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? A = B?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?

The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic. The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories: equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution. But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of revelational knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives. The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.

The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid. And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.

But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption isn't inherently contradictory. It just is as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.

(By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)

The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.

In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.

For example:

What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?

What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

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

What objectively absolute standard of morality?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

Then the lack of evidence of a God is no different than the lack of evidence of dozens of Gods, or thousands, or trillions.

 

[PratchettFan]

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding. You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round. I referred to your posts only because someone else did so. Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow! Now that's the juice. You just cleared up a few things for me. I'm a novice. But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics. The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants. What's the answer to that one?

The answer to that question is no, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible. The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.

One might as well ask the question can God not be God? Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The logical answer to these questions is no. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.

But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity and is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion God does not exist is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty because it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? A = B?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?

The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic. The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories: equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution. But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of revelational knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives. The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.

The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid. And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.

But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption isn't inherently contradictory. It just is as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.

(By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)

The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.

In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.

For example:

What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?

What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

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

What objectively absolute standard of morality?

Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is morally bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your moral code were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .

Why are you asking me that question? Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is? Are you stupid or something? You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true. Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it. No justification required? No explanation required? Really? You're asking me? Do you need me to wipe your ass too? Change your diapers? Blow your nose? Murder is not murder? Rape is not rape? Theft is not theft?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding. You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round. I referred to your posts only because someone else did so. Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?

Seriously? Then explain to us how two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

A circle is a square?

A rectangle is a triangle?

Black is white?

Something is nothing?

 

[PratchettFan]

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding. You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round. I referred to your posts only because someone else did so. Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?

Seriously? Then explain to us how two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

A circle is a square?

A rectangle is a triangle?

Black is white?

Something is nothing?

Yes, seriously. Asking me questions is not presenting evidence, unless you want to stipulate I am a qualified expert on the subject. I would recommend against that. Now, can you or can you not present actual objective evidence?