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

[Boss]

Some matter may have an end but ultimately whatever happens to this earth and the stars and the comets and meteors will just be recycled into the next universe that comes along or doesn't come along, in another bazillion katrillion years. Next question?

Please explain how this can happen with a universe that is not only expanding but accelerating? Every second of time that passes, every atom in the universe gets further apart and does it faster than the second before. Now... You've heard of Newton's Laws of Motion, I assume? So how is it, all these atoms suddenly stop doing what they've been doing forever, and a reverse process happens? According to Newton, the ONLY way such a thing could ever happen, is if a stronger force acted upon the atoms of the universe. Hmm.... what is more powerful than the universe?

Let me catch you up to date on science here... Back about 90 years ago, scientists held a theory that the universe may be cyclical. That matter compressed tightly, creating friction and the energy caused an explosion (the big bang). Then all the matter burst out into the universe in this explosion, eventually stopped expanding and the forces of gravity drew it all back together again into a singularity. Rinse and repeat.

However.... and this is very important. The more science studied the universe, the more they realized the universe is not behaving as if the expansion was from an explosion. You see, when something explodes, the velocity of matter is greatest at the time of explosion and gradually diminishes over time. Eventually, friction acts upon the matter and velocity reaches a zero point. (See Newton's Laws of Motion) But the velocity of the universe expansion is increasing, not diminishing. Therefore, it is not possible for the universe to "reverse course" and contract back in on itself, unless some other unknown force acts upon the universe to cause this. We find no evidence of any such force. Black holes are not that force, if anything, they are working against any such contraction of matter, sucking up massive portions of the universe. Gravity is not that force because gravity is constant, it would be working on the universe at present to slow the velocity and it's not.

So you are left with an outdated theory that has no relevant basis in physics. Still, you've heard someone state this theory and it sounded good to you at the time, so you're here repeating it as if you are smart.

 

[sealybobo]

You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it? What if I had the power to move things with my mind?

If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.

I just read this: The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter. When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.

I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs. Check it out: The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

 

[Boss]

LMFAO... Well... when you get silly boob to quote Corinthians to make his point... you've accomplished something, I guess!

 

[sealybobo]

Some matter may have an end but ultimately whatever happens to this earth and the stars and the comets and meteors will just be recycled into the next universe that comes along or doesn't come along, in another bazillion katrillion years. Next question?

Please explain how this can happen with a universe that is not only expanding but accelerating? Every second of time that passes, every atom in the universe gets further apart and does it faster than the second before. Now... You've heard of Newton's Laws of Motion, I assume? So how is it, all these atoms suddenly stop doing what they've been doing forever, and a reverse process happens? According to Newton, the ONLY way such a thing could ever happen, is if a stronger force acted upon the atoms of the universe. Hmm.... what is more powerful than the universe?

Let me catch you up to date on science here... Back about 90 years ago, scientists held a theory that the universe may be cyclical. That matter compressed tightly, creating friction and the energy caused an explosion (the big bang). Then all the matter burst out into the universe in this explosion, eventually stopped expanding and the forces of gravity drew it all back together again into a singularity. Rinse and repeat.

However.... and this is very important. The more science studied the universe, the more they realized the universe is not behaving as if the expansion was from an explosion. You see, when something explodes, the velocity of matter is greatest at the time of explosion and gradually diminishes over time. Eventually, friction acts upon the matter and velocity reaches a zero point. (See Newton's Laws of Motion) But the velocity of the universe expansion is increasing, not diminishing. Therefore, it is not possible for the universe to "reverse course" and contract back in on itself, unless some other unknown force acts upon the universe to cause this. We find no evidence of any such force. Black holes are not that force, if anything, they are working against any such contraction of matter, sucking up massive portions of the universe. Gravity is not that force because gravity is constant, it would be working on the universe at present to slow the velocity and it's not.

So you are left with an outdated theory that has no relevant basis in physics. Still, you've heard someone state this theory and it sounded good to you at the time, so you're here repeating it as if you are smart.

I just came up with it on my own. It was just a theory. Until we know we should just admit we don't know and keep looking.

I'm still waiting for a link from you showing me even one other person that agrees with your theories. Until then I'm going to just assume you are just one pathetic lunitic on the web who thinks he's smart just like every other insane person thinks they are a misunderstood brilliant mind.

 

[Boss]

You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it? What if I had the power to move things with my mind?

If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.

I just read this: The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter. When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.

I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs. Check it out: The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

Conradiction of logic... If MOST everything is nothing, then everything is NOT nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it? What if I had the power to move things with my mind?

If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.

I just read this: The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter. When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.

I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs. Check it out: The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

Conradiction of logic... If MOST everything is nothing, then everything is NOT nothing.

Hey, I was just trying to find something ANYTHING that backs up your beliefs and I ran across this crazy site. The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

Sounds like the shit you say. Check it out. I found it when I googled Spiritual nature created physical nature.

I can't find anything pal. Looks like you're all alone with your crazy theories.

 

[Boss]

I just came up with it on my own. It was just a theory. Until we know we should just admit we don't know and keep looking.

I'm still waiting for a link from you showing me even one other person that agrees with your theories. Until then I'm going to just assume you are just one pathetic lunitic on the web who thinks he's smart just like every other insane person thinks they are a misunderstood brilliant mind.

I don't believe you came up with it on your own. I believe you heard bits and pieces of various theories which you didn't understand and were incapable of comprehending, and you morphed these together to form the Silly Boob Super Theory.

Hey look man, I am more than happy to leave this at "we don't know, let's keep looking" but you simply refuse to abide by those terms. You say this, but no sooner than you post those words, here you are presenting theories as if they are known facts, rejecting anything to the contrary, and pretending you know. We're not going to be able to have this both ways, but that is consistently what you seem to want.

 

[Boss]

You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it? What if I had the power to move things with my mind?

If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.

I just read this: The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter. When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.

I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs. Check it out: The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

Conradiction of logic... If MOST everything is nothing, then everything is NOT nothing.

Hey, I was just trying to find something ANYTHING that backs up your beliefs and I ran across this crazy site. The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

Sounds like the shit you say. Check it out. I found it when I googled Spiritual nature created physical nature.

I can't find anything pal. Looks like you're all alone with your crazy theories.

Well, I am certainly not alone in thinking Spiritual Nature created everything. In fact, that's what about 95% of the human species believes to one degree or another. And it makes logical sense, unlike your illogical theory. The physical couldn't create itself if it didn't exist.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I only went by what it appeared you were saying. Sometimes you have to ask in some way or guess something in some way to elicit from the other person what he means. That's all. I really wish I'd seen this post before posting to Foxfyre, so please look at that post because it's important to this (1294). I strongly disagree. One of the first bible studies I did after becoming a Christian was on God's attributes. This was my own study using a concordance. The ideas about these things in the philosophy I've read are different from the Bible. Then I compared my notes to a couple of books on biblical doctrine and theology. I was seeing the same thngs. In my opinion, the only thing that can be taken from Aristotle, for example, is the idea that God is indivisible and unchangeable in His being. The rest of his stuff doesn't work very well with the Bible. The Bible overwhelming talks about God's attributes in the most perfect or complete sense there is. I have no idea what verses you could be talking about that contradict this. I know that Descartes, Plato and Kant talk about God in the most perfect sense but the problem with those guys is that you end up with a philosophy of pure subjective introspection with ideas of perfection about everything else. Why should that be I ask myself? Once you get past the objective things that can be seen in the highest sense about God's attributes from thinking about the idea of God from the problem of origin, these guys need to stop and get over themselves. Lots of the other stuff they go on about past the objective things that can be known about God from reflection is not in the Bible about God or other things.

You should use Nave's Topical Bible to study topics, it helps a lot.

I have a reading schedule that takes me through the entire Bible 4 times a year, and have read every translation I could find. I even learned Greek so that I could read the Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek. Over many years my view of God changed from what I first learned, but I also learned that New Christians are the most dogmatic about their beliefs. I can tell you that, if you continue to just read the Bible, and study things that you discover in that process, you will eventually learn that most of the stuff you now see as unquestionable is entirely questionable. God will reveal Himself to you on a personal level in a way that I cannot explian, and you will realize that you cannot explain Him to anyone else anymore than you can explain your best friend, you simply do not have the time.

I said all of that to explain why I am not willing to go into everything on this forum. It would take months just to build a foundation for you to understand the many shortcomings you have in your understanding of God. Being a Disciple is a lifelong journey, it took me years to get to where I am, and I have barely scratched the surface.

I think that's why I get rather bored once more going through the intense theological studies these days. I did the work for years and years, learned all the terminology, concepts, and arguments, went through the theological perspectives of all the church fathers from New Testament times into the Renaissance and Reformation and the spread of the church and its doctrines into the New World. And I was blessed with a broad spectrum of 'teachers' ranging from Roman Catholic to Anglican/Episcopal to the more protestant mainline churches from the most fundamentalist to the most liberal so I wasn't restricted to one perspective.

And while none of that was without value and I learned a great deal and significantly expanded my own perspectives, ultimately it comes down to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and our relationship with God as to what we believe in our hearts. If we latch onto the theological arguments/doctrines as the way it is and refuse to see it any other way, we are limiting it all to one person or one group of people's belief and teaching. And I am convinced that no one person or group of people have God all figured out any more than I do.

So these days I prefer to discuss it all in more universally common language with other believers and those who are curious or seekers. And like you I know I have barely scratched the surface.

QW is still trying to defeat it...

Actually, I am not trying to defeat anything, all I have done is show you that the Law of Thought is not applicable to the universe outside our thoughts. I then proceeded to show you that, despite your assertion that these laws are universally held to be axiomatic, there are actually different types of logic that do view them as axioms.

In other words, all I have done is show you your errors.

The term defeat in formal argumentation means refute. I thought you knew everything about logic. You've been lecturing us all on logic, setting yourself up as the grand master of logic around here, and yet I kept showing that you don't know what you're talking about half the time.

So what we have here in your post is your failure to recognize the formal term for refutation (defeat), your contention that you're not trying to refute (defeat) followed by a claim that you have refuted (defeated) something I supposedly argued.
You showed no such thing. Nor could you. No one could show such thing either way!

It's not something that can be proved either way in the ultimate sense.

And you should know by now that the actual idea I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the power of human apprehension.

Don't misstate my position again.

You're insinuating that I have claimed to have proven this in terms of ultimacy when I have never made any such claim whatsoever. On the contrary, I have made it abundantly clear that it can only be asserted scientifically in terms of human nature and can only be justifiably proven under the rules of organic logic in strictly academic terms.

You’re the one making a claim in terms of ultimacy. DOGMATIC, PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT.

Under the terms of constructive logic which attempts to establish proofs in the absolute sense, albeit, materially, neither the positive or the negative of this potentiality could possibly be assigned a truth value, for there is no direct evidence for an inhabitable proof for either position. The suspension of the law of the excluded middle and double negative elimination as axioms in constructive logic has absolutely nothing to do with the ultimate potentiality of a metaphysical universality of the principle of identity.

How could it?

And neither potentially can be falsified under the fundamental rules of thought (in the organic or academic sense) or under the rules of constructive logic.

You really don't know this stuff at all, do you?

 

[BreezeWood]

Spiritual Nature created everything.

Spiritual concatenates life, why would it then create a Universe devoid of any representation of its existence but for a single planet among billions ?

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Value of general relativity: I always wondered what the practical benefit of general relativity was, and now I know. It proves that nothing is something, and in fact controls and creates the whole universe.

Nothing causes everything to happen. It creates gravity, gravity creates planets and stars, stars concentrate and release all energy and matter. Thus everything physical comes from and is created by nothing. 0 = 2

I always wondered how stupid people who think they understand something can be, I am beginning to think you are barely scratching the surface of your stupidity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In other words, all I have done is show you your errors.

My errors?

How can constructive logic falsify a metaphysical proposition?

How would that work in constructive logic?

If you correctly understood what I'm asserting, then your proposition would have to be that the divine Logos (the ultimate ground of the universal Principle of Identity), namely, Jesus Christ, does not assure that the rational forms and logical categories of human apprehension are synchronized with the material properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order.

What precisely is the direct evidence for the inhabitable proof that would allow your proposition to be assigned a truth value, let alone overthrow the fact that the counter proposition cannot be falsified under the rules of justification of either classical logic or constructive logic?

On the other hand, what precisely did you fail to understand about the fact that your proposition under the rules of justification of classical logic and standard propositional logic (first order predicate logic) is false?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just read this: The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter. When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.

I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs. Check it out: The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

That was funny.

The double slit experiments actually show that Heisenberg was right, and quantum mechanics is a valid field. If it actually was the mind of an observer making a difference it wouldn't work when you put a non sentient detector at the slit to monitor the experiment, or did you not read that far? But, please, keep showing us that you are the intellectual equivalent of a earthworm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The term defeat in formal argumentation means refute. I thought you knew everything about logic. You've been lecturing us all on logic, setting yourself up as the grand master of logic around here, and yet I kept showing that you don't know what you're talking about half the time.

Yes, and I am not trying to refute them, because there is no need, I am trying to get you to think outside the box.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My errors?

How can constructive logic falsify a metaphysical proposition?

How would that work in constructive logic?

If you correctly understood what I'm asserting, then your proposition would have to be that the divine Logos (the ultimate ground of the universal Principle of Identity), namely, Jesus Christ, does not assure that the rational forms and logical categories of human apprehension are synchronized with the material properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order.

What precisely is the direct evidence for the inhabitable proof that would allow your proposition to be assigned a truth value, let alone overthrow the fact that the counter proposition cannot be falsified under the rules of justification of either classical logic or constructive logic?

On the other hand, what precisely did you fail to understand about the fact that your proposition under the rules of justification of classical logic and standard propositional logic (first order predicate logic) is false?

By demanding that you defend your premises instead of assuming, by default, that they are true.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Funny thing, using logic I can prove anything I want,

Exactly. It's merely semantic gamesmanship.

""The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil"-Bertrand Russell.

Now this is philosophical bullshit, akin to QW's bullshit about constructive logic wherein truth values can only be assigned to propositions supported by direct evidence for inhabitable proofs while all propositions in general are held to be unproved until falsified by evidence or deduced contradictions.

"Lies can be true." "Truths can be lies."

Hogwash!

There are no such assignments unless the proposition assigned a truth value is mistakenly perceived to be supported by direct evidence for an inhabitable proof, in which case the error would be due to the abuse or misuse of the principle of identity at some level or another, like QWs' confusion that science is not premised on philosophical apriorities as if it floats in midair.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

My errors?

How can constructive logic falsify a metaphysical proposition?

How would that work in constructive logic?

If you correctly understood what I'm asserting, then your proposition would have to be that the divine Logos (the ultimate ground of the universal Principle of Identity), namely, Jesus Christ, does not assure that the rational forms and logical categories of human apprehension are synchronized with the material properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order.

What precisely is the direct evidence for the inhabitable proof that would allow your proposition to be assigned a truth value, let alone overthrow the fact that the counter proposition cannot be falsified under the rules of justification of either classical logic or constructive logic?

On the other hand, what precisely did you fail to understand about the fact that your proposition under the rules of justification of classical logic and standard propositional logic (first order predicate logic) is false?

By demanding that you defend your premises instead of assuming, by default, that they are true.

I already proved that the major premise of the transcendental argument is incontrovertible as any counterargument is actually the premise of an argument that necessarily presupposes it to be true. Under the rules of justification of standard, real-world logic (classical and propositional) and under the rules of inference the premise is true. I don't have to demonstrate anything. Just point to fact that you yourself presuppose it to be true every time you try to refute it.

Under the rules of justification of constructive logic the proposition, insofar as it pertains to the biological level of the principle, holds a truth value. At the metaphysical level it holds an unproved value as it cannot be supported by direct evidence, but only by inferential evidence. Either way it has evidentiary support, just not the kind under constructive logic that warrants an inhabited proof.

Your counterproposition, on the other hand, is falsified by your own argument under the rules of justification of organic logic, i.e., in the generic sense of God and knowledge sans the biblical details, cannot be assigned a truth value at any level or within any model of logic and is at best unfalsfiable under the rules of constructive logic . . . that is, until Christ returns. Then it will be disproved by direct evidence for Christ will lace you up on Who He is and why we are without excuse in terms of synchronization.

Now prove that wrong.

Neither objectively demonstrable truth or logic will help you, because the truth and the logic are not on your side, in spite of your previous insinuations before you got clobbered by someone who understands logic better than you. Give an arrogant asshole who's been a dick to everyone on this thread enough rope. . . .

Scripture won't help you, because all of your talk about such is mere insinuation.

And your phony allegations about my supposed intellectual bigotry won't help because as I have shown you’re the only one making unjustifiable claims in terms of ultimacy without qualification.






.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I never said Aristotle did not use sensory data. . . .

Hogwash!

This is what you wrote:

Yet Copernicus, with that same rock solid analysis of sensory data, reached a different conclusion, and used math to prove it.

What did Aristotle use again?

That's right, he didn't use anything. Why? Because philosophers think their brain is better than science.

The brain is the seat of our senses. The mind above the brain is what wields the principle of identity, which alerted him to his error. He disregarded that.

I said he didn't use math.

As I explained:

What led Aristotle astray was his extracurricular philosophizing in violation of the recommendations of the principle of identity. Ironically, as you alluded earlier, he got it into his head from the perfections of the Logos (God) . . . that those "heavenly movements" that didn't line up with the perfection of geometric circularity must be miscalculations. He had the information he needed to get it right all along!

In other words, the classical empiricist Aristotle wasn't entirely free of his teacher's influence; however, the bulk of the mathematical calculi based on the sensory data of the unaided eye from an earthly perspective worked. He simply decided to disregard those aspects of the sensory data on the peripheral of his "ideal model" in spite the fact that the principle of identity was telling him there was a problem.​

If he had [used math] he would have seen that the planets retrograde motion totally destroyed his classical logic axiom that the universe was perfect.

He did see that. He did use math. He went with the bulk of it and disregarded the rest. And it was not a “classical logic axiom” that moved him. It was a creed of Platonic, geometric idealism.

 

[G.T.]

No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.

That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.

 

[Boss]

You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it? What if I had the power to move things with my mind?

If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.

I just read this: The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter. When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.

I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs. Check it out: The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

The double-slit experiment does not prove the mind affects energy and matter. It is the act of observation that changes how matter behaves, or more specifically, how electrons behave. But hey, the amazing electron is very accustomed to blowing the mind of logic and reason. It can appear or disappear, it can be at two places at one time, or no places at all. It can pop into and out of existence with no explanation.

The really interesting thing is, electrons are necessary components of every single material thing in our universe. Everything you see or are aware of in physical nature is comprised of atoms with electrons. This has prompted some to theorize and speculate that what we perceive as reality is actually a hologram. I think there is a video on YouTube about the "Holographic Universe" ...it's a little far-fetched, but hey... it's a theory.

Even more fascinating is the deeper we look inside of the atom, the more amazing things we discover and find. Large Hadron Colliders are busting atoms into tiny pieces (particles) to discover all kinds of special components which give atoms various properties. As we make these discoveries, we must comprehend that physics as we have known it is being rewritten. Many of the ideas we once had about the nature of our physical universe is now obsolete as new things are being discovered.