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

[Justin Davis]

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.

Well, I believe all this is true. It makes good sense. I'm mean we'll be living and learning of Him forever. This Book never ends. What I don't understand is why you think M.D.R. doesn't know that. When you say things that are obviously true are not true, like things about set logic or intuitionistic logic or things I know to be in the Bible are not in the Bible about the kind of things that even unbelievers can see if they don't look away, that doesn't give me confidence. Now my confidence isn't in you but you ask me to believe things you say from your experience. I have a responsibility to verify what you say in God's word. I see many of the same things he sees though I don't understand everything as well. But I have been carefully checking the things he says. I see them in the Bible. The truth is I'm amazed. What I see him saying is keep it simple so that you can be open to everything God wants to show you. Yet you say he's doing the opposite. I know from experience and from what God has told me things get very complex if we start imagining free will from our point of view first. I agree with him to look at it from God's point of view first. I think that youre seeing limitation in precision. I see calm and trust in that, not chaos and demands.

 

[G.T.]

I do transcend genres though

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false, nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.

For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith. Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced. But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.

Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy. We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.

While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process. And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.

Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.? Especially the demand part. That demand part throws me.

Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity". Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that. But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon. And he gives a person a lot to think about.

He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory): God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong. It is free will that makes evil possible.

That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.

On the omniscience of God, he wrote:

". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​

I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.

And that brings us to the 'demand' part. Whenever you find people who say:

1. God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
2. God would do this or would not do that. . . .
3. It is true because it is Biblical. . .
4. It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
5. You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
6. You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .

you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently. And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do. That is what I mean by demand.

 

[Boss]

Again, you are refuting my evidence. Doesn't matter why you claim to be refuting it. If evidence were valued the same by everyone, you wouldn't be refuting my evidence. Now, I presented you my evidence because you demanded it, knowing that you were not going to accept it and telling you that beforehand. As soon as I presented it, you accuse me of being mentally ill unless I can give you more evidence. So if I give you more evidence, does it make me "insane" unless I give you even more? Is that how this works?

Okay, you want more evidence? My life has been spared 3 times by the grace of God. By all logic and reason, I should have died. Again, you will refute my evidence because you don't believe it is evidence. I don't care if you accept my evidence or even value it as evidence. It is evidence to me and that is all that matters. My point has been to demonstrate to your stupid ass that "evidence" means different things to different people and it largely depends on individual perspective. I think my point is proven.

Well, you are right, I won't accept your evidence that you didn't die except by the grace of God, because IT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

It is an unsubstantiated assertion.

The good and the bad escape death every day. the good and the bad die every day. How is that evidence of God? how is that evidence of spiritual reality? How is that evidence of anything except that humans are mortal.?

How do you know that you didn't die because you were wearing a lucky tie, or ate cornflakes in the morning, or never walked under a ladder?

Where will the grace of God be in the day that you actually do die?

So... back on post #1331 where you said: "If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence." ...you're now admitting that was incorrect?

I don't have to defend my evidence and you don't have to accept my evidence. The fact that you are saying my evidence is not evidence is making the only point I intended to make. Evidence is subjective. Evidence is not universal. Each person can value evidence differently, or acknowledge/refute said evidence as such, depending on perspective. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that point.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity". Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that. But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon. And he gives a person a lot to think about.

He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory): God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong. It is free will that makes evil possible.

On the omniscience of God, he wrote:

". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​

I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.

And that brings us to the 'demand' part. Whenever you find people who say:

1. God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
2. God would do this or would not do that. . . .
3. It is true because it is Biblical. . .
4. It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
5. You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
6. You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .

you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently. And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do. That is what I mean by demand.

So keep it simple and stop imagining that accuracy means limitation. That way it doesn't matter how smart are you. Smarts has got nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

Simplicity is complexity in God. God is the conceivably highest degree of perfection in attribution. And there are two and only two things that matter in terms of conceivability: contradiction and infiniteness. He is never the former and He always the latter. To always keep these two things in mind is the difference between order and chaos. Period. End of thought.

I don't need to know anything more than that about the extent of His attributes and His prerogatives. He'll fill in the blanks. All I need to know is that there is nothing He can't do but not be Who He is.

"My thoughts are not His thoughts, and My ways are not your ways." Some might take exception to the term conceivably. Don't. God obviously made it possibly for us to comprehensively grasp these two vital truths, not the details in total, but the concepts in total. He wants us to know these things that we may know that we can trust Him in all things with absolute confidence.

Nowhere in the Bible among the multitude of iterations regarding our finite nature will you ever find the Hebrew or the Greek terms for our thoughts or ways to mean wisdom or logic. Thoughts and ways go to our finite apprehensions and volitions only. God's wisdom and logic is that still, small voice. The calm and quite voice of perfect understanding and reason without the clutter or the chaos or the noise of our thoughts and our ways. It's not our wisdom or our logic inside of us. It's His wisdom and His logic inside of us. And that perfect wisdom and logic is everywhere and in everything, grounded in Him.

With all due respect, we are not to look at Him or the cosmological order in any other way but by His wisdom and His logic. His Wisdom is perfect understanding and His logic is perfect continuity: A = Logos: W and L simultaneously.

It's that simple.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? We both know your earlier argument failed.

No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis. That is not supported.

So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.

That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?

Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God. That's the stuff of the booby hatch. But you won't be alone. There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic. Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God. They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other. Now that's a whole other personality disorder.

As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am. Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now! Oh, never mind. Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent. So that's not a rational option. So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know. But if I know that I don' know how do I know that? Well, it's settled. I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .

It's not my fault you misunderstand.

I can reason that god doesnt exist without presupposing god by doing so.

Very easily.

Okay,. But in truth you can't "reason" that God doesn't exist, but you can say he doesn't exist all you want. Nobody's stopping you, not even God. But bear this in mind. God has a way of firming up our decisions. Say yes. He'll firm that up for ya. Say no. He'll firm that up for you too. Your in a dangerous place G.T.. Get out. Say yes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hogwash!

This is what you wrote:

Which does not claim he did not use sensory data, it just points out he didn't use anything to prove his ideas were correct.

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.

That was funny.

Can you provide any evidence that Aristotle ever realized he was wrong, or are you just assuming you can read his mind?

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.​

​

In other words, he didn't use math.

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.

Funny how you are the only person in the universe who thinks Aristotle knew he was wrong.

No. He did use math, which was indirectly intuited from sensory data, the movements. He embraced the bulk of it that work according to his ideal model which he believed had to be true.

I didn't say he knew he was wrong. He thought he was right. We know he had essentially the same mathematical calculations as Averoes.

But you're too harsh on Aristotle. In my opinion, the five top philosophers worth reading are Aristotle, Machiavelli, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley.

 

[Foxfyre]

Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity". Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that. But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon. And he gives a person a lot to think about.

He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory): God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong. It is free will that makes evil possible.

On the omniscience of God, he wrote:

". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​

I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.

And that brings us to the 'demand' part. Whenever you find people who say:

1. God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
2. God would do this or would not do that. . . .
3. It is true because it is Biblical. . .
4. It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
5. You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
6. You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .

you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently. And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do. That is what I mean by demand.

So keep it simple and stop imagining that accuracy means limitation. That way it doesn't matter how smart are you. Smarts has got nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

Simplicity is complexity in God. God is the conceivably highest degree of perfection in attribution. And there are two and only two things that matter in terms of conceivability: contradiction and infiniteness. He is never the former and He always the latter. To always keep these two things in mind is the difference between order and chaos. Period. End of thought.

I don't need to know anything more than that about the extent of His attributes and His prerogatives. He'll fill in the blanks. All I need to know is that there is nothing He can't do but not be Who He is.

"My thoughts are not His thoughts, and My ways are not your ways." Some might take exception to the term conceivably. Don't. God obviously made it possibly for us to comprehensively grasp these two vital truths, not the details in total, but the concepts in total. He wants us to know these things that we may know that we can trust Him in all things with absolute confidence.

Nowhere in the Bible among the multitude of iterations regarding our finite nature will you ever find the Hebrew or the Greek terms for our thoughts or ways to mean wisdom or logic. Thoughts and ways go to our finite apprehensions and volitions only. God's wisdom and logic is that still, small voice. The calm and quite voice of perfect understanding and reason without the clutter or the chaos or the noise of our thoughts and our ways. It's not our wisdom or our logic inside of us. It's His wisdom and His logic inside of us. And that perfect wisdom and logic is everywhere and in everything, grounded in Him.

With all due respect, we are not to look at Him or the cosmological order in any other way but by His wisdom and His logic. His Wisdom is perfect understanding and His logic is perfect continuity: A = Logos: W and L simultaneously.

It's that simple.

But see. In your very first statement you tell me to ". . .stop imagining that accuracy means limitation. . . ." --something I have not even suggested much less said--followed by a lecture on simplicity which is exactly what I have been arguing for some pages now And for some pages now you have been consistently advising me how I have it wrong re wisdom and logic concerning God and accusing me of limiting God because I see that somewhat differently than you have expressed.

Perhaps you know more of his wisdom and logic than I do. I have no way of knowing that. Nor do I care. But I still maintain that to insist that God must be this or must be that is to limit God. And so far every time I have suggested that, you have disagreed. So if I draw wrong conclusions re what you believe, then I draw wrong conclusions. But my conclusions haven't been developed in a vaccum either. If I have misunderstood or misrepresented your argument in anything, I am most willing to be corrected on that. But I have to know exactly what I have misrepresented to correct it.

I am NOT criticizing your point of view on anything other than your assumptions about what I think, what I believe, what I assume, what I imagine. I generally resist that sort of thing which may in fact be stubborn pride. As I told Justin, God and I are working on that. I thoroughly enjoy friendly--and I do insist that it be friendly--debates with other Christians on all manner of JudeoChristian theology, history, prophecy, law, etc. I don't demand that anybody agree with me, but only that they hear me and represent my argument accurately and do not presume to draw inferences from it that simply are not there.

 

[Boss]

I actually think Aristotle was one of the first pinheads. Most everything he taught turned out to be completely wrong. His notion that things have "gravity" because they long to be close to the earth and things have "levity" because they long to be near the sky, was the prevailing "scientific" consensus for nearly 2,000 years, until Newton came along. Because it was such an entrenched philosophy, many rejected the teachings of Newton, it took years for his work to be accepted. Same with his wrong-headed theories about motion.

What we can learn from Aristotle is, man is subject to rationalize based on logical supposition (conventional wisdom) instead of actual scientific methodology. We assume things to be true because it seems like they should be, it makes sense. Turns out, that is not always the case, things are sometimes true that make no rational sense at all. Sometimes what seems should be true is not true at all. Aristotle was a great reasoner and rationalizer but he was a terrible scientist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I believe all this is true. It makes good sense. I'm mean we'll be living and learning of Him forever. This Book never ends. What I don't understand is why you think M.D.R. doesn't know that. When you say things that are obviously true are not true, like things about set logic or intuitionistic logic or things I know to be in the Bible are not in the Bible about the kind of things that even unbelievers can see if they don't look away, that doesn't give me confidence. Now my confidence isn't in you but you ask me to believe things you say from your experience. I have a responsibility to verify what you say in God's word. I see many of the same things he sees though I don't understand everything as well. But I have been carefully checking the things he says. I see them in the Bible. The truth is I'm amazed. What I see him saying is keep it simple so that you can be open to everything God wants to show you. Yet you say he's doing the opposite. I know from experience and from what God has told me things get very complex if we start imagining free will from our point of view first. I agree with him to look at it from God's point of view first. I think that youre seeing limitation in precision. I see calm and trust in that, not chaos and demands.

Nothing I said about logic is untrue. There is more than one way to look at the universe, and there is more than one form of logic that you can use. The biggest problem with all of them is is that logic is inherently limited by humans ability to conceptualize, and the universe is not bound by our thinking.

As for free will, it is one of the hottest subjects in theology. There is a wide range of beliefs in Christianity about what, exactly, free will is. They range from the Calvinistic doctrine that we have absolutely no free will to the Catholic teaching that we are totally free to choose to do good or evil despite our innate desire to sin. Many sects see free will as the ability to do evil, and actually teach that it is impossible for man to do good without the direct influence of God.

Tatian a student of Justin Martyr, argued for the the existence of free will over fate to the Greeks in the second century.

(Just an aside, the writings of Tatian clearly disprove any claim that the story of Jesus was not written until hundreds of years after his death, he actually edited the first know Synoptic Gospel.)


ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century Hermas Tatian Athenagoras Theophilus and Clement of Alexandria Entire - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

It wasn't until over a millennia later that predestination became the dominant them in Christian theology. Perhaps you have heard of John Calvin.

Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Many of the modern beliefs of the church contradict the teachings of the people that are considered the church fathers. While it is possible that the people that actually studied under the apostles got things wrong, personally, I am more inclined to believe their teachings over those of later teachers who contradict them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. He did use math, which was indirectly intuited from sensory data, the movements. He embraced the bulk of it that work according to his ideal model which he believed had to be true.

I didn't say he knew he was wrong. He thought he was right. We know he had essentially the same mathematical calculations as Averoes.

But you're too harsh on Aristotle. In my opinion, the five top philosophers worth reading are Aristotle, Machiavelli, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley.

Aristotle was wrong. Saying that is not harsh, it is a fact. The only reason to study the work of people who are wrong is to learn how to avoid their mistakes. Aristotle believe his logic proved the universe was perfect. That was his mistake, and I refuse to make the same one.

 

[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.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? We both know your earlier argument failed.

No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis. That is not supported.

So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.

That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?

Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God. That's the stuff of the booby hatch. But you won't be alone. There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic. Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God. They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other. Now that's a whole other personality disorder.

As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am. Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now! Oh, never mind. Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent. So that's not a rational option. So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know. But if I know that I don' know how do I know that? Well, it's settled. I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .

It's not my fault you misunderstand.

I can reason that god doesnt exist without presupposing god by doing so.

Very easily.

Okay,. But in truth you can't "reason" that God doesn't exist, but you can say he doesn't exist all you want. Nobody's stopping you, not even God. But bear this in mind. God has a way of firming up our decisions. Say yes. He'll firm that up for ya. Say no. He'll firm that up for you too. Your in a dangerous place G.T.. Get out. Say yes.

I'll worry about it just as soon as I see one coherent reason to believe there was a sentient creator of our universe/multiverse/whatever verse.

Psycho babble doesn't tug on my heart strings, there's nothing to date I've seen concrete.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?

The answer is no. I have no particular theory, just the knowledge that by Christ all things were made and subsist. I suppose that's a theory of sorts. What I'm after is simplicity. It works every time. I really haven't read a whole lot of theology or a lot of philosophy in the conventional sense. I've read quite a bit of the history of ideas and events and ran into the major themes, the nuts and bolts, of the various schools of thought in philosophy. I know Henry. Justin mentioned him. Good choice. His theology will take you deep into the history of thought too. I've read the more important works of the guys I mentioned in the above because they're more practical than most. I've read some Plato because you have to really due to his influence on the Church, though I think his stuff is pretty dreamy, Aristotle too as a result of Aquinas' love affair with him. I know Locke best, though I don't share his epistemology. I've read some Kant: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

The Bible's epistemology is a balanced, commonsensical rational-empiricist approach premised on Christ. Philosophy proper is metaphysical definition.

The problem with my logic is that (1) it's not really my logic, but (2) my thoughts and my ways impersonating logic. Christ is the Logos

All I've been talking about on this thread goes to the objectively and universally apprehensible imperatives of the problem of origin, with the exception, of course, of defending what is the historically orthodox/majority biblical view of creaturely free will, albeit, once again, on the terms of the totally open-ended, conceivably highest degree of divine attribution. Simplicity. I find nothing in scripture that supports any sort of diminution of God's attributes to accommodate free will. I trust that it persists. The Bible says it does. I see no reason to question it, especially because the diminution of God's attributes creates all kinds of serious problems that most don't get if they're doing their thoughts and their ways.

Simplicity.

God can create any dimensional state of existence wherein the two coincide without contradiction. That's why it's important to rightly render the principle of identity: A =A (all potential existents simultaneously). It's perfectly coherent. It's in our heads. God can do it without conflict, and it's in the Bible just so. I don't care about the details. I wouldn't understand them anyway, though I get peaks at them from time to time. Bottom line: I look at the objectively apparent contents of the human mind put there by God, as lead by God. These things are found in the Bible as the things we all may see relative to the general attributes of God and the particulars of the various proofs for God's existence. There's a reason there's only a small handful of those. The most immediate and most power is the transcendental. God says test Me. Try Me. Engage Me. Sure enough they're in my head too.

Given the fact that I'm merely reporting on what is the totally open-ended, conceivably highest degree of divine attribution and the infiniteness of the principle of identity in terms of potential existents or states of existence without bias or bogged down with unnecessary detail, where's this idea coming from that I am imposing any limitation on what God can be or do or how He can do it? The details are in the journey with God. You're not going to get at those any other way. I have just the faintest idea about those. How do you plumb infinity?

Also, QW's assertion that the construct of the eternal now is not supported by the Bible is false! That's scripturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally and historically false. In short, it's patently false. I trust that from scripture I have shown it to be false in the above.

One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.

Everything I'm talking about is framework. They're in our heads. They're in the Bible. And the Bible tells us they're in our heads.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No. He did use math, which was indirectly intuited from sensory data, the movements. He embraced the bulk of it that work according to his ideal model which he believed had to be true.

I didn't say he knew he was wrong. He thought he was right. We know he had essentially the same mathematical calculations as Averoes.

But you're too harsh on Aristotle. In my opinion, the five top philosophers worth reading are Aristotle, Machiavelli, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley.

Aristotle was wrong. Saying that is not harsh, it is a fact. The only reason to study the work of people who are wrong is to learn how to avoid their mistakes. Aristotle believe his logic proved the universe was perfect. That was his mistake, and I refuse to make the same one.

Whatever, Dude. You win. Jeez.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? We both know your earlier argument failed.

No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis. That is not supported.

So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.

That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?

Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God. That's the stuff of the booby hatch. But you won't be alone. There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic. Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God. They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other. Now that's a whole other personality disorder.

As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am. Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now! Oh, never mind. Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent. So that's not a rational option. So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know. But if I know that I don' know how do I know that? Well, it's settled. I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .

It's not my fault you misunderstand.

I can reason that god doesnt exist without presupposing god by doing so.

Very easily.

Okay,. But in truth you can't "reason" that God doesn't exist, but you can say he doesn't exist all you want. Nobody's stopping you, not even God. But bear this in mind. God has a way of firming up our decisions. Say yes. He'll firm that up for ya. Say no. He'll firm that up for you too. Your in a dangerous place G.T.. Get out. Say yes.

I'll worry about it just as soon as I see one coherent reason to believe there was a sentient creator of our universe/multiverse/whatever verse.

Psycho babble doesn't tug on my heart strings, there's nothing to date I've seen concrete.

Just saying. Say yes and you can see it. It's in your head.

 

[G.T.]

For all intents and purposes, from my vantage point everything IS in my head.

Lol

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You keep saying that, and then you resort to bullshit to attempt to prove you are right.

Remember this? http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9942916/

The principle of identity holds that any given A can be two or more things simultaneously unto infinity. Your idiotic rendering of the law of the excluded middle, which would make the doctrine of the Trinity a violation, has been exhaustively debunked, and your computer analogy is incoherent gibberish. Your bald protestations to the contrary sans any direct argument is tiresome.

Your either dumb as a box of rocks or you're lying. Which is it?

It ain't working because, As I have already explained, there are other ways of looking at the universe and how we perceive it than classical thought. None of these methods require me to slam a square peg into a round hole and pretend it fits.

No. I explained. All you ever do is insinuate. Constructive logic doesn't lay a finger on the construct of the universality of the principle of identity either: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9943371/

You haven't said it, and I never said you did.

This is what you wrote:

There is a reason the Law of Identity is part of the Law of Thought, and it is not because the universe is run by our thoughts.

You keep saying this to me as it's something I don't understand. If I've never asserted any such stupidity then why to you keep repeating this rather unremarkable observation as if it were something profound?

You do, however, continue to argue that the laws of thought, which are not universal axioms, mean we cannot see the real universe because you refuse to see anything that contradicts them.

And you've lost touch with reality. (1) The organic laws of the principle of identity are universally hard-wired; (2) they’re universally apparent and hold true for all humans of sound and developmentally mature minds; (3) the rules of artificial, alternate-world models of logic do not negate the fact that these axioms universally hold as premised on the organic paradigm and (4) as artificial, alternate-world models of logic are microcosmic constructs within the macrocosmic construct of real-world logic, they are contingent on the latter.

We never actually lose our awareness of the law of the excluded middle/double negation elimination because the presupposition of them as axioms is suspended to amplify the principle of identity in order to get at an alternate means of perceiving the cosmological order, from the negative to the positive. Any given extrapolations ultimately must be reoriented to the real world and conform with the comprehensive expression of the principle of identity in order to be of any practical use. Those that cannot be brought back under the sway of the law of the excluded middle/double negation elimination in the real world are not real!

What is wrong with you?

In astrophysics, for example, this tool can be used to enhance our intuitive powers that we might extrapolate new principles that serve to unify the various sets of physical laws at the points of breakdown. The principle of identity still holds and delineates the various constituents of the problem.

The fundamental distinction between classical logic and constructive logic is not the suspension of certain axioms, but the rules of justification regarding the inhabited proofs of direct evidence, the restraints on the assignment of truth values which, counter-intuitively, allows for a wider variety of the kinds of propositions that can be conceptualized.

we cannot see the real universe because you refuse to see anything that contradicts them.

Well, it’s not clear what this means, but if your still going on about your idiotic rendering of the law of the excluded middle, one again, you’ve got it all wrong in your head.

Take two aspirin, stop conflating A: A and ~A with A: A or ~A, and go to bed.

 

[Picaro]

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 ?

.

To show off?

Maybe it takes such a complex collection of physical influences to make our little existence work, or other plans are in store? Don't know from a theological context, but many reasons are possible. DNA is another example of complexity in itself, not 'universal' in scale but certainly interesting.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

For all intents and purposes, from my vantage point everything IS in my head.

Lol

I forgot.

 

[MaryL]

Well, be that as it may, Agnostic as I am, questioning god's existence factually won't make anyone open their eyes. Especially the Muslims, whom seem more overwhelmed with "Surrender" or to "Submit". To What? And the fact Islam kills people that criticism it, not Jews, Christians or any other religion. And the fact God is a man made up concept to begin with, WOW...really, WOW. Muslims condemn drone strikes, but don't actually do anything to stop bad actors in their own camp committing terrorism and pretend to be victims of aggression when Muslim terrorist hide amongst their own civilians. I hate these people so much for their willing ignorance and self righteousness.