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

[Justin Davis]

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.

I don't believe anything you say anymore. I see that you're sill believing that your idea about the rules of organic thought is right when it's obviously wrong. The last two days I've been studying constructive logic which I finally figured out is the same thing as intuitionistic logic and very little about what you're saying could be true. Your posts don't make any sense. I read M.D.R.'s posts and they make perfect sense with what I've learned and you keep saying he doesn't understand it or rejects it when obviously he uses it in his own studies of things. I now understand it pretty good especially after seeing my thinking confirmed by M.D.R. and several different sites on constructive logic all saying the same thing M.D. R is saying and really nothing you're saying. I don't believe you about Anselm either because Henry goes into depth about his argument and the truth is Anselm was criticized by philosophers because he didn't actually get his idea from thinking about it from his mind but from the Bible. All he did was make the same argument in a general way without using Bible terms. I mean he understood the other way too from thinking about origin but what he was really trying to do was make an argument to help people believe in God so that they might read the Bible and believe in Jesus. None of the scripture you site in the above counters the idea of complete omniscience and apparently some people will just latch onto anything like Foxfrye. When you say that we make the choice did you forget that I believe in real free choice? I notice that you imply things that aren't real a lot and I also know that "it repented the Lord" doesn't mean a change of mind but regret that He would have to bring the judgment of the flood on man. Passages about God repenting are conditional decrees of warning or final decrees depending on whether we choose to be obedient, which God counts as righteousness, or not.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in? The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite? Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible? How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations? Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that arise if God is not completely omniscient? Do you know what they are?

 

[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.

I don't believe anything you say anymore. I see that you're sill believing that your idea about the rules of organic thought is right when it's obviously wrong. The last two days I've been studying constructive logic which I finally figured out is the same thing as intuitionistic logic and very little about what you're saying could be true. Your posts don't make any sense. I read M.D.R.'s posts and they make perfect sense with what I've learned and you keep saying he doesn't understand it or rejects it when obviously he uses it in his own studies of things. I now understand it pretty good especially after seeing my thinking confirmed by M.D.R. and several different sites on constructive logic all saying the same thing M.D. R is saying and really nothing you're saying. I don't believe you about Anselm either because Henry goes into depth about his argument and the truth is Anselm was criticized by philosophers because he didn't actually get his idea from thinking about it from his mind but from the Bible. All he did was make the same argument in a general way without using Bible terms. I mean he understood the other way too from thinking about origin but what he was really trying to do was make an argument to help people believe in God so that they might read the Bible and believe in Jesus. None of the scripture you site in the above counters the idea of complete omniscience and apparently some people will just latch onto anything like Foxfrye. When you say that we make the choice did you forget that I believe in real free choice? I notice that you imply things that aren't real a lot and I also know that "it repented the Lord" doesn't mean a change of mind but regret that He would have to bring the judgment of the flood on man. Passages about God repenting are conditional decrees of warning or final decrees depending on whether we choose to be obedient, which God counts as righteousness, or not.

Wow! I was about to explain the essence of the biblical iterations of divine repentance, but you obviously have a solid understanding of this. Henry? I don't recall him touching on this, but this is right. Lots of young believers get the "anthropomorphism thing" stuck in their heads for years until they look at the various Hebrew roots of the English translation which does not adequately convey the matter via the terms repentance or repented that they might understand that these are conditional decrees/irrevocable decrees depending on the context relative to man's response in terms of repentance.

 

[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.

So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in? The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite? Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible? How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations? Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that arise if God is not completely omniscient? Do you know what they are?

Reposted:

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 that, especially because the diminution of God's attributes creates all kinds of serious problems/paradoxes that most don't apprehend if they're doing their own thoughts and their own ways and stop thinking at that point: presume that the philosophical argument that limits God's foreknowledge in order to accommodate free will is hunky dory, when in fact it creates a whole host of new and staggeringly complex problems that make your movie in the can look like a very small production indeed. --Rawlings​

Maybe she doesn't think you know what they are. Just saying.

 

[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.

So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in? The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite? Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible? How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations? Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that arise if God is not completely omniscient? Do you know what they are?

Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this. The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever. And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important, and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth. If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that. If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me. I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.

I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion. It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility.

After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.

It's been proven in spades by me with a club or two thrown in.

No it hasn't.

You're just OK with inserting assertions /assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w. ( and I said low in a really bassy Wilford brimley voice).

But the funny thing is that you never comprehensively state or seemingly allow yourself to comprehensively embrace the immediately pertinent constituents of the matter all at once as one truly dedicated to the very highest standards of academic tradition: in a manner that allows for the issues of existence and origin to be objectively mapped out so that all of the various options are clearly defined and delineated without bias as I did in Post #1482.

(But you're not alone, for as we may all see Q.W. is an even more disingenuous practitioner of the ancient, dogmatic sophistry of magical argumentation. Fortunately, I'm an accomplished practitioner of the art of exposing the fraudulent techniques of those who would self-servingly pass off their rhetorical magic for truth.)

You can't even bring yourself to describe the actual nature of the assumptions that I have made on this thread. You deceitfully use terms like "insert" or deceitfully imply that things that are proofs under the conventional standards of justification and categorical distinctions of organic/classical logic are not proofs. Indeed, you invoke these very same standards in such a way as to obscure the essence of your deceit, which evinces that you are consciously aware of the fact that these things are legitimately established proofs under these standard just like Q.W..

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.

Well, looky here. It would seem that you're "inserting assertions/assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w."

You even castigated Q.W. for his deceitful abuse of these very same standards, and rightly so, regarding his incoherent, paradigm-shifting gibberish about the all-knowing-not-all-knowing computer program, and the paradigm he shifted to without warning, without qualification, was that of constructive logic, just like you did without qualification in a "low . . . really bassy Wilford Brimley voice."

Were you accusing me of something untoward or yourself?

You're aware of the fact that the stark assertion of atheism is irrational under the terms of organic/classical logic and that you cannot craft an argument against the MPTA on its own terms of organic/classical logic without actually proving it's true with your very own argument. Hence, you are compelled to assert the objection of the evidentiary terms of constructive logic, just like Q.W. did without first accurately/honestly stating the nature of your qualification.

And what does your qualification comprehensively entail?

Answer: the acknowledgement that artificial, alternate-world models of logic are necessarily contingent on the categorical distinctions of organic/classical logic's conventional standards!

Let's take another look at Post ##1482, which demonstrates that one may know all about the intellectual gymnastics that the likes of Q.W. are up to. He is clearly someone who is trying deceive or mislead others from recognizing important, objective facts of human cognition and logic.

Actually, G.T., I don't think you're of his ilk, as he dogmatically claims to know all kinds of things absolutely about ultimate metaphysical realities, without a shred of discernible evidence or rational justification, that no one could absolutely demonstrate in terms of ultimacy from this side of heaven, just as I show in Post ##1482 as he deceitfully pretends to be an authority on logic when quite obviously, as I have shown, he's fraud.

The only things I've been talking about on this thread all along are in Post ##1482. While I obviously believe that the conclusions of organic/classical logic are reliable as I believe they are in fact grounded in a transcendent Principle of Identity, I've never claimed that the variously pertinent constituents of the matter and the imperatives or origin were anything else or other than what is presented in Post #1#1482. The only way we could arguably assert to know anything more about the transcendent potentiality in our minds beyond the objectively immediate imperatives of origin and their ramifications is through direct revelation of a significantly more intimate nature than the purely intellectual explorations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.

 

[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.

So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in? The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite? Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible? How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations? Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that arise if God is not completely omniscient? Do you know what they are?

Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this. The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever. And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important, and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth. If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that. If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me. I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.

I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion. It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.

I'm not making anything contentious. You just keep suggesting that any further exploration of things constitutes contentiousness. But check out post #1506 and see what's really going on around here.

 

[Justin Davis]

I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility.

After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.

It's been proven in spades by me with a club or two thrown in.

No it hasn't.

You're just OK with inserting assertions /assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w. ( and I said low in a really bassy Wilford brimley voice).

But the funny thing is that you never comprehensively state or seemingly allow yourself to comprehensively embrace the immediately pertinent constituents of the matter all at once as one truly dedicated to the very highest standards of academic tradition: in a manner that allows for the issues of existence and origin to be objectively mapped out so that all of the various options are clearly defined and delineated without bias as I did in Post #1482.

(But you're not alone, for as we may all see Q.W. is an even more disingenuous practitioner of the ancient, dogmatic sophistry of magical argumentation. Fortunately, I'm an accomplished practitioner of the art of exposing the fraudulent techniques of those who would self-servingly pass off their rhetorical magic for truth.)

You can't even bring yourself to describe the actual nature of the assumptions that I have made on this thread. You deceitfully use terms like "insert" or deceitfully imply that things that are proofs under the conventional standards of justification and categorical distinctions of organic/classical logic are not proofs. Indeed, you invoke these very same standards in such a way as to obscure the essence of your deceit, which evinces that you are consciously aware of the fact that these things are legitimately established proofs under these standard just like Q.W..

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.

Well, looky here. It would seem that you're "inserting assertions/assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w."

You even castigated Q.W. for his deceitful abuse of these very same standards, and rightly so, regarding his incoherent, paradigm-shifting gibberish about the all-knowing-not-all-knowing computer program, and the paradigm he shifted to without warning, without qualification, was that of constructive logic, just like you did without qualification in a "low . . . really bassy Wilford Brimley voice."

Were you accusing me of something untoward or yourself?

You're aware of the fact that the stark assertion of atheism is irrational under the terms of organic/classical logic and that you cannot craft an argument against the MPTA on its own terms of organic/classical logic without actually proving it's true with your very own argument. Hence, you are compelled to assert the objection of the evidentiary terms of constructive logic, just like Q.W. did without first accurately/honestly stating the nature of your qualification.

And what does your qualification comprehensively entail?

Answer: the acknowledgement that artificial, alternate-world models of logic are necessarily contingent on the categorical distinctions of organic/classical logic's conventional standards!

Let's take another look at Post ##1482, which demonstrates that one may know all about the intellectual gymnastics that the likes of Q.W. are up to. He is clearly someone who is trying deceive or mislead others from recognizing important, objective facts of human cognition and logic.

Actually, G.T., I don't think you're of his ilk, as he dogmatically claims to know all kinds of things absolutely about ultimate metaphysical realities, without a shred of discernible evidence or rational justification, that no one could absolutely demonstrate in terms of ultimacy from this side of heaven, just as I show in Post ##1482 as he deceitfully pretends to be an authority on logic when quite obviously, as I have shown, he's fraud.

The only things I've been talking about on this thread all along are in Post ##1482. While I obviously believe that the conclusions of organic/classical logic are reliable as I believe they are in fact grounded in a transcendent Principle of Identity, I've never claimed that the variously pertinent constituents of the matter and the imperatives or origin were anything else or other than what is presented in Post #1#1482. The only way we could arguably assert to know anything more about the transcendent potentiality in our minds beyond the objectively immediate imperatives of origin and their ramifications is through direct revelation of a significantly more intimate nature than the purely intellectual explorations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.

I get It now more fully. All you've been really saying is that while there might be different opinions about things like free will and stuff, at the very least or for simplicity's sake these are the things that are known about the problem of origin for sure assuming the things we have to practically assume about our existence and the universe and stuff. And that's it. If we get these things and think about them honestly we can at look at all the other stuff without rancor. I think that's what you mean.

 

[G.T.]

There no burden of proof on me, I'm not the one asserting that a transcendental mind exists and also that arguing against one presupposes its truth. That's......fffffucking stupid.

Until I see something more than pseudointellectual psychobabble - that remains a naked assertion.

I have not seen any conclusive reasoning backing the tag - nine, zip, zilch, nadda. It is wishful thinking at best.

Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper, it could 'just be,' and that very real possibility creates quite the problem for the childish tag argument.

 

[Boss]

Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper, it could 'just be,' and that very real possibility creates quite the problem for the childish tag argument.

The thing is, "it could just be" isn't valid as a scientific argument, nor does it conform to logical reality of the universe we live in. Nothing "just is" without explanation. That's the whole basis and purpose of science, to discover WHAT is.... and HOW is... not to assume "just is" with anything.

You can certainly believe in "just is" all you like, that's a faith-based belief, and humans have those, it's perfectly rational and normal. It just has nothing to do with science.

 

[G.T.]

Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.

Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.

 

[Boss]

Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.

Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.

Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is."

What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?

 

[G.T.]

Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.

Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.

Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is."

What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?

Well dipshit, two things.

I didn't say "it just is," I said 'it just is, is a POSSIBILITY, OF THE MANY."

TWO: THE TAG ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING OTHERS AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS, I WASNT TALKING TO YOU. IF YOURE INTERESTED, GOOGLE IT. OR READ THIS VERY THREAD. IF NOT, BUZZ OFF.

 

[Boss]

Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.

Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.

Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is."

What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?

Well dipshit, two things.

I didn't say "it just is," I said 'it just is, is a POSSIBILITY, OF THE MANY."

TWO: THE TAG ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING OTHERS AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS, I WASNT TALKING TO YOU. IF YOURE INTERESTED, GOOGLE IT. OR READ THIS VERY THREAD. IF NOT, BUZZ OFF.

Fuck you, dude, you don't get to tell me to buzz off. I simply asked you what "tag premise #1" is, and you are the only idiot I see mentioning such a thing here. You've still not defined it, this thread is FULL of premises and arguments, none are "tagged!"

"IT JUST IS" ...is NOT a possibility! It's a CONCLUSION! It is the willing concession there is no possibility and can be none. It is giving up on possibilities for the easy belief that "it just is" without further evaluation. It explains why you are such an insufferable dumbass.

 

[G.T.]

Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.

Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.

Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is."

What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?

Well dipshit, two things.

I didn't say "it just is," I said 'it just is, is a POSSIBILITY, OF THE MANY."

TWO: THE TAG ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING OTHERS AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS, I WASNT TALKING TO YOU. IF YOURE INTERESTED, GOOGLE IT. OR READ THIS VERY THREAD. IF NOT, BUZZ OFF.

Fuck you, dude, you don't get to tell me to buzz off. I simply asked you what "tag premise #1" is, and you are the only idiot I see mentioning such a thing here. You've still not defined it, this thread is FULL of premises and arguments, none are "tagged!"

"IT JUST IS" ...is NOT a possibility! It's a CONCLUSION! It is the willing concession there is no possibility and can be none. It is giving up on possibilities for the easy belief that "it just is" without further evaluation. It explains why you are such an insufferable dumbass.

Umm.....paragraph #2 is dumber than a box of rocks.

Also - if I'm the only one you've seen mention tag premise #1, you don't know how to read.

Tag is the transcendental argument for god. Its been widely discussed, and also CALLED tag, by more than just me in this very thread.



Ssssssso dumb its painful.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There no burden of proof on me, I'm not the one asserting that a transcendental mind exists and also that arguing against one presupposes its truth. That's......fffffucking stupid.
+
Until I see something more than pseudointellectual psychobabble - that remains a naked assertion.

I have not seen any conclusive reasoning backing the tag - nine, zip, zilch, nadda. It is wishful thinking at best.

Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper, it could 'just be,' and that very real possibility creates quite the problem for the childish tag argument.

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have down on the second one.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of this obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?

But looky here. W have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper"!

Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.

 

[G.T.]

To m.d.,

Still waiting for tag #1 being justified.

It isn't, and its far from an axiom.

The rest of the shit you posted was a waste of time.

It books down to 'we don't know,' everything else is arrogance.

Saying that a transcendent mind knows it is all knowing is and was meaningless in regard to whether IT DOES OR DOESNT EXIST. SO CONTINUING TO BRING THAT POINT UP IS PSYCHOBABBLE UNAPPLICABLE BULLSHIT. the entire convo about it was called 'an aside.'

Back to tag #1 - it is not an axiom because exists the possibility that its NOT TRUE. THEREFORE, tag rests on no ground as a poof of god. None.

 

[Justin Davis]

There no burden of proof on me, I'm not the one asserting that a transcendental mind exists and also that arguing against one presupposes its truth. That's......fffffucking stupid.
+
Until I see something more than pseudointellectual psychobabble - that remains a naked assertion.

I have not seen any conclusive reasoning backing the tag - nine, zip, zilch, nadda. It is wishful thinking at best.

Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper, it could 'just be,' and that very real possibility creates quite the problem for the childish tag argument.

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything but the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin may exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have down on the second one.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of this obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You understand that your belief about the potentiality of number 4 cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that everybody knows to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of your presuppositions about realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?

But looky here. W have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper"!

Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. claims to know all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical or alternate-world forms of logic or apprehension

To be or not to be.

 

[Boss]

Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.

Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.

Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is."

What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?

Well dipshit, two things.

I didn't say "it just is," I said 'it just is, is a POSSIBILITY, OF THE MANY."

TWO: THE TAG ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING OTHERS AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS, I WASNT TALKING TO YOU. IF YOURE INTERESTED, GOOGLE IT. OR READ THIS VERY THREAD. IF NOT, BUZZ OFF.

Fuck you, dude, you don't get to tell me to buzz off. I simply asked you what "tag premise #1" is, and you are the only idiot I see mentioning such a thing here. You've still not defined it, this thread is FULL of premises and arguments, none are "tagged!"

"IT JUST IS" ...is NOT a possibility! It's a CONCLUSION! It is the willing concession there is no possibility and can be none. It is giving up on possibilities for the easy belief that "it just is" without further evaluation. It explains why you are such an insufferable dumbass.

Umm.....paragraph #2 is dumber than a box of rocks.

Also - if I'm the only one you've seen mention tag premise #1, you don't know how to read.

Tag is the transcendental argument for god. Its been widely discussed, and also CALLED tag, by more than just me in this very thread.

Ssssssso dumb its painful.

Ah.. so "TAG" is an acronym... now I got it. The thread is 76 pages long, I've not read every single post. Well, on the issue of God being transcendental, I think God has to be transcendental since that is what it means. Any argument for any other kind of God is going to be problematic.

Now... paragraph #2... how is it dumb, in your humble opinion? You failed to explain.

Again, the statement "it just is" is not a possibility because it's a conclusion. It is the dismissing of all possibilities. You've simply not refuted that and you can't.

 

[G.T.]

Its one possibility OF THE MANY possibilities...and if you don't think so, great, but don't try and converse with me in such a psychotic manor.

Saying 'it just is' is one possibility, it only shuts down all other possibilities IF ITS TRUE. It is NOT PROVEN, therefore its not concluded but only POSSIBLE.

THIS IS A DENSE AS FUCK MEANINGLESS SIDE CONVERSATION. JEEBUS.