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

[sealybobo]

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.

I'm not claiming to know anything. But keep in mind that no matter how stupid I am it is you who believes in an invisible man who talks to you, cares for you, made a heaven for you and a hell for all your enemies.

Who's the dumb fuck here?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm reposting this with a number of clarifications that are of great importance regarding the distinctions between organic logic and alternate forms of logic, and I'm going to pull portions out of it in response to QW's ongoing confusion. It's imperative for all Christians to get the principle of identity straight, as Christ is the universal Logos! With regard to the academic rendering of the principle of identity, which must be correctly understood first, the following is not a subjective belief, but should be objectively and abundantly self-evident to all, especially the particulars of the expanded edition of the analogy in this post, which, by the way, touches on what Boss is so eloquently arguing. The fact of the matter is that the nuts and bolts of constructive logic hammer the points I've been making about the principle of identity home; they do not undermine it at all as QW has suggested.

To save time, I'm gong to copy and paste portions of this in answer to some of Fox's and QW's posts. This idea that I think I have God all figured out or am being unfair to some is bogus! It's not my mind that's closed or being dogmatic. Objective, universally apparent truths are not by definition the stuff of dogmatism! Objective assertions regarding the framework, framework, framework, framework, framework of the cognitive facts of human apprehension relative to the problem of origin, or the objectively apparent framework, framework, framework, framework, framework serving as the starting point for questions like free will, regardless of what your personal solution might be, has nothing to do with telling you what you should believe about God. Personal opinions that might pop up here or there as asides will be in red.

Fox, I know you know what follows because I know your mind on certain particulars from other posts and threads in which you have expressed your understanding of these things. If only you would stop and carefully considered this version of the post without all that personal stuff you might realize that the notion you have in your head about what I'm doing is all wrong. Put the past away and start fresh. What have you got to lose?

Constructive/Intuitionistic logic 101


Neither organic logic nor any additional/alternative forms of logic are philosophy, in and of themselves. They're tools used by scientists, philosophers, theologians, engineers, mathematicians, linguists. . . . The fundamental nature of philosophy is the indispensable business of metaphysical definition premised on the delineations of the organic principle of identity. Unlike the vast majority of system-building philosophies, What is it? can be objectively and universally weighed, tested or falsified as it most immediately goes to conceptualization and linguistics. As for as system-building philosophies go . . . if it's not directly based on natural law as delineated by the principle of identity and affirmed by scripture: I've got no use for it.

What you have failed to share with the others, QW, is that the identity of constructive logic is an artificial analytic tool predicated on the organic principle of identity, as any other form of logic must necessarily be, that merely precludes double negation elimination and the law of the excluded middle from its set of axioms.

Ultimately, it's a microcosmic, alternate-world model of logic within the macrocosmic real-world model of organic logic. Notwithstanding, it's a very useful tool as it provides a means of evaluating propositions in terms of direct evidence about the real world. Also, in alternate-word mathematics, especially, this model serves to amplify organic logic's power in very much the same way that various technologies amplify our senses. It also provides alternate ways of looking at the real world that may divulge new possibilities, albeit, from negative perspectives that go back to real-world positives.

The foundational law of the principle of identity, the discrete law of identity as considered separately from its elaborations, and the law of contradiction still operate. It cannot be otherwise. But instances of excluded middles or double negation eliminations cannot be generally demonstrated, only discretely demonstrated on a case by case basis.

In organic logic, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA), for example, is assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof: it cannot be falsified, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes it to be true. God exists! The principle of identity, the foundation of knowledge, universally applies! For its logical proof is unassailable.

(Now, of course, GT and QW are still making the same unremarkable point as Jake that this does not mean that this contention is ultimately true. HELLO! AFTER FOURTEEN-HUNDRED posts. . . . In alternate-world forms of logic is the MPTA necessarily true logically or axiomatically? HELLO! AFTER FOURTEEN-HUNDRED posts. . . .

NO. IT"S NOT!

It’s regarded to be unproved. I KNOW THIS.

But don't lose sight of the fact that this observation is the ultimate counterargument that still proves the MPTA to be true in the real world of organic logic.)

Note that nothing since that last personal opinion is in red. As for those who subscribe to metaphysical anti-realism, that all is an illusion, that all logic is relative, which is not true, by the way, in organic or alternate forms of logic, as we shall see, that, therefore, nothing can be said to be objective knowledge . . . you win. I surrender. We necessarily presuppose certain things: We exist, the cosmos exists and a transcendent realm of being may exist. Fine. I mean, you know, yawn, but fine. Carry on. . . .

As for the rest of you, read on. . . .

In constructive logic the MPTA (in spite of the fact that it is logically true, academically, under the terms of classical logic) cannot be assigned a truth value in terms of ultimacy because the substance of its Object does not assert any direct material evidence, only inferential evidence, namely, the cosmological order, and the inferentially apparent synchronization of our minds with the cosmological order's properties and mechanisms (more on this vital distinction below).

In other words, we've all been talking about the MPTA in terms of ultimacy, on the terms of constructive logic, all along, most of you unawares.

Instead, the MPTA would be assigned an unknown truth value, as it's not inhabited by a proof of direct evidence. It would be regarded as being valid, though not in the same sense as in organic logic, until it was disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction, and since no contradiction can be deduced about it, it remains something that is unproven or unfalsifiable in constructive logic. This is merely the same thing as saying that currently transcendental propositions are not subject to scientific falsification.

That's nothing new!

In other words, the MPTA cannot be falsified in either of the respective worlds of logic, but for different reasons.

As I said before, because the principle of identity, which is the basis of the MPTA, is organic, one can never escape it or opt out of it. In fact, even in doing constructive logic, one is never actually not aware of the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination. We simply enter into a world of logic where those aspects of organic logic are not presupposed to be axioms. That's all.

An analogy that assumes God's existence in terms of ultimacy for the sake of illustration:

From this side of heaven, under the rules of organic logic, God exists! That is, He exists . . . logically. The truth value or logical validity of the MPTA is objectively and independently affirmed by any counterargument.

But under the rules of constructive logic/mathematics, God might or might not exist. The proposition is unprovable, but only because constructive logic requires direct evidence, i.e., the inferential evidence of established theory in science, which, by the way, is still a tricky business as certain "established theories" are arguably premised on metaphysical naturalism.

(This demonstrates why QW's thinking that science precedes philosophy is foolishness. With all due respect, it’s his notion that's “philosophical bullshit.”)

Any proposition can be considered within the world of constructive logic, but not all propositions can be assigned a truth value. Constructive logic cannot consider inferential, empirical evidence about something metaphysical . . . unless constructive logic is being applied by someone who is "standing" in the metaphysical realm of being. Theoretically, an observer beyond this mortal coil could safely assert that God exists under the rules of both organic and constructive logic, as he would be in the realm of direct evidence, not partially or wholly stuck in the inferentially evidential realm of being asserting a logical "truth" of pure reason based on the existence of the cosmological order.

And those of us who believe our being is in Christ Jesus, just like Boss is talking about, can and do assign a truth value to God's existence on the terms of constructive logic as persons who believe they are standing in the metaphysical realm of being, though still tied to this mortal coil via our physical bodies, with direct evidence and a testimony to go with it. We just can't make others experience that evidence directly and, therefore, cannot assert the rules of constructive logic in any universally objective or scientific way. Others have to open up their minds and say yes to God in order to experience this reality directly.​

Can I get a witness, brothers and sisters?

In short, QW has never really been alluding to anything that constitutes a game changer as far as the principle of identity is concerned. He's simply making the very same rather unremarkable observation that all of us with an IQ above that of a gnat have made all along: the existence of God, beyond the rules of logic and evidence of the organic principle of identity, is not demonstrable/provable in terms of ultimacy, as those proofs for God's existence are based on inferential evidence, not direct evidence, in spite of the fact that the cosmological order does constitute direct evidence for God’s existence under the terms of organic logic.

As for the vitally important distinction: the organic laws of logic (comprehensively, the principle of identity) evince two distinct levels of being.

One of them is a scientifically falsifiable: the laws of human apprehension/thought are intrinsically organic, universally hard-wired, at the very least, in our brains by nature. Most scientists and philosophers hold this to be true with plenty of scientific evidence. This is not merely intuitively true. Hence, in constructive logic this would be assigned a truth value.

The other is a theological proposition: the laws of human apprehension/thought are ultimately grounded in God. God is the universal Principle of Identity on Whom the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (RFLCHC) are contingent. Ultimately, this is the reason for the apparent synchronization of the RFLCHC with the rest of the cosmological order. This proposition, of course, would only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic until disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.

 

[Taz]

Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.

Been listening to your teachers again, haven't you.

Any intelligent being that looked around could see the world was not flat. Not only did people know for thousands of years before Columbus that the Earth was round, they knew how big it was. Your teachers might have told you that no one wanted to give him the money he needed to sail to Chine because they thought the Earth was flat but they are lying, the real reason no one wanted to give him the money is they knew he couldn't sail that far.

Turns out they were right, he would have died if he didn't get lucky that there was a bunch of land in the way.

Religious dogma taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Plus, you're an idiot.

 

[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.

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.

Couple things.

1.
I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider?

Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.

Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.

Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.

I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God, I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.

I agree.

2. I read this and it reminded me of how you claim 95% of humans believe "something"

The guy said, "When you talk about atheists only being 5% of the population, you are just talking about self-identified Atheists, which can’t even be counted in 3rd world countries as they have never even heard that term. But when you add Agnostics and admitted non-believers, you are at around 20% of the world population. When you also consider that in half the world, if you say you don’t believe, you will be killed (yes, God’s loving people) or shunned (like in America), it’s no wonder that percentage isn’t higher. I would expect that about 40% of the world, at least, have no real religious beliefs.

 

[G.T.]

Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.

Again, that's baseless, useless, not demonstrated, naked assertion.

 

[sealybobo]

Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.

Been listening to your teachers again, haven't you.

Any intelligent being that looked around could see the world was not flat. Not only did people know for thousands of years before Columbus that the Earth was round, they knew how big it was. Your teachers might have told you that no one wanted to give him the money he needed to sail to Chine because they thought the Earth was flat but they are lying, the real reason no one wanted to give him the money is they knew he couldn't sail that far.

Turns out they were right, he would have died if he didn't get lucky that there was a bunch of land in the way.

Religious dogma taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Plus, you're an idiot.

I was looking at the definition and read that it came to signify laws or ordinances adjudged and imposed upon others by the First Century.

it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.

As a possible reaction to skepticism, dogmatism is a set of beliefs or doctrines that are established as undoubtedly in truth.[8] They are regarded as (religious) truths relating closely to the nature of faith.[9]

The term "dogmatic" can be used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly, including political[10] and scientific[11] beliefs

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

Here we go again.

The Law of Identity, which is the proper term to use, says no such thing. What it says is that everything that is the same is the same, while everything that is different is different.

(I'll get back to the "here we go again" in another post . . . for the last time in such a way as to leave no doubt.)

No. The law of identity, proper, is the first law of the three classical laws of thought. Any time I refer to it, I do write the law of identity.

Comprehensively, the three classical laws of thought are the academic principle of identity, beginning with the first law of thought: the law of identity (A = A). The second and third laws of thought—the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, respectively—are in fact elaborations on the first law of thought.

Hence, anytime I refer to the laws of thought in the context of their comprehensive expressions, the term I use is the principle of identity: the principle of the three classical laws of thought, the universally transcendent Principle of Identity or the organically universal principle of identity.

Both the law of identity, proper, and the comprehensive principle of identity (the three laws of thought collectively at any level of their expression) hold that any given A of a single predicate may be two or more things simultaneously unto infinity. Such an A = such an A, as opposed to an A that is not two or more things simultaneously. This is not rocket science. The construct of the Holy Trinity is an A of a single predicate that is three Persons in one God. Infinity is such an A in terms of all existents or numbers simultaneously. Physical space is such an A. Electromagnetic radiation is such an A. The Majorana fermion is such an A.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[1] Because you keep repeating that the laws of thought are axioms, and [2] categorically reject all forms of logic [3] that don't agree with your [4] opinion.

(1) The laws of thought are axioms! (2) Where have I ever written that I categorically reject all forms of logic? (3) What forms of logic disagree with anything I've written? (4) What opinion are you talking about?

(The voices in your head don't count.)

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I wrote: The organic laws of the principle of identity are universally hardwired.

You, unhinged, raving like a lunatic, responded:

Excuse me, they are not fucking hardwired because they exist only as concepts that we believe. The simplest proof of that is dark matter and dark energy, two things that must exist, yet cannot be defined by science, logic, or philosophy.

Excuse me. It's not my fault you can't keep track of reality or comprehend, after already conceding on this thread that they are organic, hence, hardwired by nature, that I'm obviously talking about the science of human cognition, entailing the falsification of the Aristotlean-Lockean construct of a blank slate.

Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization and the structural semantics of language. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third. This is what makes us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Moreover, we are aware of the apparent necessity and existence of what we call dark matter and dark energy via the delineations of organic logic regarding their effects on visible phenomena, including the acceleration of the cosmos' expansion, and these things are defined insofar as they can be at this point via the metaphysical-phenomenal delineations of organic logic. To be aware of something is to put a name on it, to put a name on it is to define it, however inadequately due to a lack of information, but, of course, these things are not immediately relevant to the organic component of human cognition or to the proposition of a universal, metaphysical principle of identity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nothing is wrong with me, other than the fact that I refuse to accept anything as a universal truth just because you say it is, especially when I know enough about logic to know that they are not universal to all forms of logic.

You're a quantum windbag lying through your teeth.

The comprehensive principle of identity is organically universal.

You don't know whether or not the principle of identity in terms of ultimacy is a metaphysical universal via any form of logic, let alone science.

Neither my personal opinion nor yours is irrelevant to the actualities of ultimacy.

Your insinuation that the case for a universal, metaphysical principle of identity is mere opinion backed by nothing more than just because I say is the behavior of a two-year-old, and you are the only one here making absolute metaphysical claims without a shred of evidence or a even the slightest hint of a rational justification.

Your insinuation that I don't understand the emboldened is dishonest.

Your insinuation that artificial forms of logic have equal standing with or primacy over organic logic is false.

Your insinuation that in any way, shape or form artificial forms of logic negate or falsify anyone of the laws of logic or the comprehensive principle of identity is cognitively, academically and factually false. Indeed, all artificial, alternate-world forms of logic are contingent on organic logic.

You're a fraud.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"If 65,400 repetitions makes one truth, why do we still argue whether G-d exists or not when billions have said more than once that He does?" - Me.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your points would actually be better argued if you didn't argue using the wrong terms.

And your point would valid except, of course, it's not valid, because you are a pretender who doesn't understand Jack or Jill about logic that you can't copy and paste or regurgitate by rote; and once again, the basis of your complaint is your ignorance regarding the academic distinction between the laws of logic proper and their comprehensive principle: identity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

And actually proves that you argument that the laws of thought are universal axioms is not true, yet you keep insisting they are because you cannot think outside the limits of classical logic.

LIAR! Everyone on this thread read Post #1482: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9952851/

If you want to insist that you have universal axioms prove it using constructive logic.

LIAR! Everyone on this thread read Post #1482: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9952851/

No one who actually understood logic in general or constructive logic especially would make such ignorant and irresponsible statements.

You're a fraud.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Want to ask another stupid question?

Want to make another stupid statement?

 

[Boss]

I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider? {no, I haven't}

Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.

Classify it however, it's my evidence. I don't believe, I know. If there were a way for me to prove to you that it existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Evidence does not equal proof. You value my evidence differently. There is nothing mentally wrong with me for believing in something greater than self, since that's what 95% of our species does. It's actually the 5% who don't that should be worried about.

Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.

Well, supernatural things would be things outside of nature, and spirituality is part of human nature. So I reject the assertion spirituality is belief in the supernatural. Blessing is a specific word we assigned for the things we receive through some means greater than self. So we're back to natural human spirituality.

Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.

I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God, I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.

I disagree, it certainly IS evidence, to tens of millions of people... to 95% of the species... on a regular basis.... for all of human history. Is it PROOF? Nope.

You want to argue that human spirituality is from our "unrestrained imagination" but the reason we have that is because we are "inspired" ...inspiration.... the root 'spir' is important, it means it comes from something greater than ourselves. So you are taking one of the truly wonderful blessings humans universally get from being spiritual creatures, and claiming that as the reason for our spirituality.

2. I read this and it reminded me of how you claim 95% of humans believe "something"

The guy said, "When you talk about atheists only being 5% of the population, you are just talking about self-identified Atheists, which can’t even be counted in 3rd world countries as they have never even heard that term. But when you add Agnostics and admitted non-believers, you are at around 20% of the world population. When you also consider that in half the world, if you say you don’t believe, you will be killed (yes, God’s loving people) or shunned (like in America), it’s no wonder that percentage isn’t higher. I would expect that about 40% of the world, at least, have no real religious beliefs.

I didn't say anything about Atheists. That 95% includes a good number of Atheists who still believe it's possible something greater than self exists. The 5% who believe in absolute nothingness are Nihilist. As for how many humans practice what degree of spirituality through various religious doctrines, I make no arguments.

When we start breaking down numbers, we can say that... yeah, 60% believe and 40% don't, but only half of those 60% go to church every Sunday, or only 5% become preachers or leaders in their church, or only .0002% become ordained as Saints... etc. According to Christian religion, 0% are perfect. The only real important number with regard to my argument about human spirituality is the 95% of the species who are spiritual.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Spiritual Nature created everything.

physiological life did not occur at the moment of singularity and can not be considered a part of the initial creation of the Universe and because spiritual nature is derived from physiology per the prospects of humanity and all living creatures it would not be credible to give credit to the spiritual nature that created the universe as the creators of the life that the Universe evolved. spiritual nature did not create everything.

only the prospects for life is what was made possible and all life so existing has done so by its own initiative.

the physiology encapsulates the new Spiritual nature for the purpose to accomplish purity as the requirement for its Admission to the Everlasting as the replenishment for a future Universe.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

I didn't accuse you. You do in fact reject the notion of absolute omniscience, which puts a restraint on God.

Earlier I suggested that we must be careful regarding evidentiary matters related to the objectively and universally understood imperatives of origin and that it’s important to be cognizant of these things whenever asserting anyone of the arguments for God’s existence in the much same manner that Justin pointed out an error in my expression of something. That was all. You told me you knew all about these things and that they can be addressed as they arise.

Fine.

I have been laying down these things that you told me you know all about as they are pertinent to the OP, which is about the classical arguments for God's existence. That‘s my approach because my calling is apologetics. What's wrong with that?

Then I start seeing posts written by you that are clearly directed at my approach including one directly addressed to me repeating the very same kinds of things, suggesting that I'm setting myself up as a judge and as one who knows all about God in spite of the fact that all I'm talking about is the objectively apprehensible framework of the OP's topic, the very things you told me you know all about, indeed, the very same things QW says he knows all about.

So does your knowing about these things make you a person setting herself up as a judge or as one who knows all about God?

If not, why not?

Or does that only become problem if one shares that knowledge or disagrees with all those things you guys know about?

In the meantime QW had the gall to launch the very same garbage at me: a man who has been lying about virtually everything that he and I have discussed.

He's an utter fraud.

His understanding of logic and the relationship between philosophy and science is sophomoric. He's making absolute statements in terms of ultimacy and as one of absolute authority about things that no one could possibly assert in the manner in which he is asserting them, for there exists no logical, philosophical or scientific foundation whatsoever for these things!

He's making absolute metaphysical claims about transcendent realties, not as asseverations inferred from anything objectively discernible, but as scientific or, unwittingly, philosophical facts of ontological proportions and in the vein of an horrifically distorted understanding of constructive logic.

This is objectively self-evident to any intellectually honest person paying attention, and the things I'm alluding to are not directly related to biblical teachings or the issue of free will, as these things are academic matters of an objectively and empirically verifiable nature.

And that appears to be what you think I'm doing, which tells me you're really not thinking about anything I've shared, for if that's what you're getting out of my posts something personal is in the way of your understanding. I am doing no such thing, and if you were to read POST #1482 you should be able to see that. For that largely summarizes the spirit of the things I've been talking about before one gets to further revelation from God.

But the most amazing thing about all of this is that what I'm trying to get at ultimately with the foundational framework is the revelation of the universal Logos of the Gospels and the Epistles, namely, Jesus Christ, by Whom all things were made and are held together.

 

[Justin Davis]

Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.

Again, that's baseless, useless, not demonstrated, naked assertion.

But all you're saying is the very same thing M.D.R. said. Under the rules of direct evidence in constructive logic the mpta can't be assigned a truth value, so why are arguing with him as if he didn't understand something that he obviously understands way better than you? He understands it way better than anyone else on this thread. This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know. I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money. I never just take people's word for things.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

I didn't accuse you. You do in fact reject the notion of absolute omniscience, which puts a restraint on God.

Earlier I suggested that we must be careful regarding evidentiary matters related to the objectively and universally understood imperatives of origin and that it’s important to be cognizant of these things whenever asserting anyone of the arguments for God’s existence in the much same manner that Justin pointed out an error in my expression of something. That was all. You told me you knew all about these things and that they can be addressed as they arise.

Fine.

I have been laying down these things that you told me you know all about as they are pertinent to the OP, which is about the classical arguments for God's existence. That‘s my approach because my calling is apologetics. What's wrong with that?

Then I start seeing posts written by you that are clearly directed at my approach including one directly addressed to me repeating the very same kinds of things, suggesting that I'm setting myself up as a judge and as one who knows all about God in spite of the fact that all I'm talking about is the objectively apprehensible framework of the OP's topic, the very things you told me you know all about, indeed, the very same things QW says he knows all about.

So does your knowing about these things make you a person setting herself up as a judge or as one who knows all about God?

If not, why not?

Or does that only become problem if one shares that knowledge or disagrees with all those things you guys know about?

In the meantime QW had the gall to launch the very same garbage at me: a man who has been lying about virtually everything that he and I have discussed.

He's an utter fraud.

His understanding of logic and the relationship between philosophy and science is sophomoric. He's making absolute statements in terms of ultimacy and as one of absolute authority about things that no one could possibly assert in the manner in which he is asserting them, for there exists no logical, philosophical or scientific foundation whatsoever for these things!

He's making absolute metaphysical claims about transcendent realties, not as asseverations inferred from anything objectively discernible, but as scientific or, unwittingly, philosophical facts of ontological proportions and in the vein of an horrifically distorted understanding of constructive logic.

This is objectively self-evident to any intellectually honest person paying attention, and the things I'm alluding to are not directly related to biblical teachings or the issue of free will, as these things are academic matters of an objectively and empirically verifiable nature.

And that appears to be what you think I'm doing, which tells me you're really not thinking about anything I've shared, for if that's what you're getting out of my posts something personal is in the way of your understanding. I am doing no such thing, and if you were to read POST #1482 you should be able to see that. For that largely summarizes the spirit of the things I've been talking about before one gets to further revelation from God.

But the most amazing thing about all of this is that what I'm trying to get at ultimately with the foundational framework is the revelation of the universal Logos of the Gospels and the Epistles, namely, Jesus Christ, by Whom all things were made and are held together.

I won't admit that I accept or reject anything that I haven't accepted or rejected. I have only argued that there is more than one way to look at the existence and attributes of God, how he works in the world, free will, and the scriptures that bear testimony to him, and also that arguments that oppose yours can be just as logical as yours are. The only thing I have criticized you for either overtly or by inference is that you have misrepresented my arguments and I think we do the universal Logos of the Gospels and the Epistles, namely, Jesus Christ, no favors when we present him in an angry, insulting, and/or contentious manner. But I rather like you and I won't fight with you, or anybody else, about my faith or beliefs or the questions I still have or the logic I utilize. I will wish you a pleasant evening and a good day tomorrow.

 

[MaryL]

Nope. Why are we wasting our time with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what made up superstition is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.

Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so.

What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.

Do tell. Religion itself is illogical. I used to believe in Santa Claus once, it's a beautiful myth, but I grew out of it. Thing that bothers me is these damned Muslims. With their suicide bombers, and their crashing planes into buildings and stoning people and hacking off heads in HD. For once, I would like to see B-52's carpet bombing Mecca in HD. But, that's just me, I am like that.