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

[G.T.]

Mmm Kay, neat post

 

[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.

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

the same logic could be used and has already been stated, the biblicists participation in this thread is illogical for the same reason they have give as proof for their TAG based biblical beliefs ... (again) you have had your thousands of years to prove your point and have failed, ergo the reason for this thread - as it presupposes all previous arguments have failed.

And there's another liar lying to himself pretending he's not proving something that he just lied about. Seriously, you guys are in real need of a fresh face around here. How long have you guys been tapping out lies on this forum? I've never seen so many lies at once. Is this the liar's club?

 

[Boss]

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.

Yes, it is a conclusion (albeit illogical) and not a possibility because it is not logical. Can you name anything in the reality we exist in that we've proven there is no explanation for and it "just is?" Now there are plenty of things we can't yet explain and don't have an answer for, but the answer is never going to be "just is" because it is not a logical answer. It's the argumentative equivalent to dividing by zero.

What is amounts to is a cop out for intellectual lightweights who don't want to objectively evaluate the possibilities. We find this a lot with atheistic non-believers who want to use "just because" as a crutch so they don't have to answer tough questions.

This isn't a "side conversation" at all, it's the nucleus of what makes you such an abject fucktard. I think that is very important to this debate.

 

[G.T.]

If you post something smart enough to respond to as opposed to childish temper tantrum retardedness like you just did, maybe I'll pay you mind.

You're just being a jerkoff - albeit thats just my opinion so don't go losing sleep over it.

 

[Justin Davis]

Mmm Kay, neat post

What do you mean? You admitted the five things are true. I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another. Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that. You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5. So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them. You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying. That's just another lie. But you're right about Q.W.. Now he's the chief liar. He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......

 

[Justin Davis]

If you post something smart enough to respond to as opposed to childish temper tantrum retardedness like you just did, maybe I'll pay you mind.

You're just being a jerkoff - albeit thats just my opinion so don't go losing sleep over it.

You thought that was a tantrum? Are you lying again? Smells like a lie. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

 

[Justin Davis]

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.

Yes, it is a conclusion (albeit illogical) and not a possibility because it is not logical. Can you name anything in the reality we exist in that we've proven there is no explanation for and it "just is?" Now there are plenty of things we can't yet explain and don't have an answer for, but the answer is never going to be "just is" because it is not a logical answer. It's the argumentative equivalent to dividing by zero.

What is amounts to is a cop out for intellectual lightweights who don't want to objectively evaluate the possibilities. We find this a lot with atheistic non-believers who want to use "just because" as a crutch so they don't have to answer tough questions.

This isn't a "side conversation" at all, it's the nucleus of what makes you such an abject fucktard. I think that is very important to this debate.

Actually "just is" is just another lie. It's like "what was" or "what's up, bro" when asked if you've paid your taxes.

 

[G.T.]

Mmm Kay, neat post

What do you mean? You admitted the five things are true. I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another. Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that. You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5. So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them. You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying. That's just another lie. But you're right about Q.W.. Now he's the chief liar. He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......

I haven't lied about a damn thing.

His five whatever the fucks - don't prove god.

I am agnostic.

And tags first premise is empty.

The five whatever the fucks don't matter, to any of that. So uh, yea. Go bark up someone else's tree about being a liar asshole.

 

[G.T.]

If you post something smart enough to respond to as opposed to childish temper tantrum retardedness like you just did, maybe I'll pay you mind.

You're just being a jerkoff - albeit thats just my opinion so don't go losing sleep over it.

You thought that was a tantrum? Are you lying again? Smells like a lie. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Lying about an opinion of something?

You're a weird dude.

Go swing from m.d.'s Johnson some more.

 

[Justin Davis]

Mmm Kay, neat post

What do you mean? You admitted the five things are true. I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another. Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that. You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5. So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them. You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying. That's just another lie. But you're right about Q.W.. Now he's the chief liar. He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......

I haven't lied about a damn thing.

His five whatever the fucks - don't prove god.

I am agnostic.

And tags first premise is empty.

The five whatever the fucks don't matter, to any of that. So uh, yea. Go bark up someone else's tree about being a liar asshole.

Lying to the trees now I see. Did you forget that I agree that God's existence cannot be proven in any ultimate sense by arguments or science? So what's your point? Seriously? What's your point? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You don't have one. So why are you tapping lies out over and over again about something we all know as if we didn't know it. You're a broken record. Are you stuck on brain freeze. What do the things you necessarily must believe to get up every morning tell you about the meaning of life? Got nothing, eh? How boring. You've got huge ideas in front you with huge implications and your conclusion is to lie to yourself. "Just is" "Just was." "My dog farted." "Where are my shoes?" What's Q.W.'s point when he lies about logic and science? What's his point? All that nutcase is saying in the end is that science can't address questions of ultimate importance, the existence of God. Whoop de do! la la la la. That's supposed to be something new? I can get more out of my piggy bank than that. Dogmatism, he says. Is that a song title for dull? Logic can prove anything, he says, expect his lies and the lies he tells to cover up those lies and the lies after that. Foxfrye's talking about persuading people. Persuade Liars? What kind of dummy tries to persuade liars? What's the point of Prachettford lying about definitions? That was a hoot. What did that liar get out of this thread? Reinforced lies that's what he got. Somebody just repeated one of Q.W.'s lies, one that reinforces disbelief . Q.W. should be proud, and Foxfyre encouraged that liar blindingly leading others to think he's open-minded, being straight, helping. But everything that comes out of his mouth was self-serving, false, faith-destroying lies. I'm the weirdo? You guys just sit around and lie to each other, pretend like ho hum ideas are big ideas.

 

[G.T.]

Tl; dr

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I don't claim its impossible for others to know things I don't, jagoff.

I claim no one knows for an absolute fact that god exists, or doesn't. Cuz if there was absolute proof of such, and not just dick swinging contests like you and m.w. were having, there wouldn't need BE these discussions.

But lest we forget - you're a douchebag who isn't worth it. Others are also finding this out, as you can plainly see. Let that marinate.

Funny, you just claimed that no one can know there is a god, yet you also claim you are not saying it is impossible for anyone to know something you don't. Tell me something, how do you know that these people do not have direct experience with whatever god they believe in? Can you prove these beings did not manifest themselves to these people physically? Can you show that these gods did take these people up into heaven and show them the evidence you insist does not exist?

Tell me something, why does the village idiot douchebag always end up making you look stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.

The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.

The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.

Not even momentarily surprised.

 

[G.T.]

No, I don't claim its impossible for others to know things I don't, jagoff.

I claim no one knows for an absolute fact that god exists, or doesn't. Cuz if there was absolute proof of such, and not just dick swinging contests like you and m.w. were having, there wouldn't need BE these discussions.

But lest we forget - you're a douchebag who isn't worth it. Others are also finding this out, as you can plainly see. Let that marinate.

Funny, you just claimed that no one can know there is a god, yet you also claim you are not saying it is impossible for anyone to know something you don't. Tell me something, how do you know that these people do not have direct experience with whatever god they believe in? Can you prove these beings did not manifest themselves to these people physically? Can you show that these gods did take these people up into heaven and show them the evidence you insist does not exist?

Tell me something, why does the village idiot douchebag always end up making you look stupid?

Saying there's one thing I know they don't know, is the same as saying there's nothing they know that I don't, at all, period? No, you're just the village retard hell bent on neener neener. Douche towel.

 

[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 don't understand why you keep saying these things. All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously. This is where this whole things started over nothing. Why is that a problem for some? Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God? I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind. When did I ever pretend that I did that? I didn't do that. How could I do that or believe that I did that? That would be sick. Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind? Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time? I'm sick of his lies. He isn't making any sense. It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing. He has the rules of organic thought all wrong. He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread. He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true. He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear. Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying? Why would anyone lie about these things? Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all. I understand it better than him. It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either. I don't understand you. You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true. In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought? How could that be? You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies. How can lies help people?

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.

I am ignorant?

Let's find out what the encyclopedia says about that.

Alternate title: law of identity

The topic principle of identity is discussed in the following articles:
laws of thought

TITLE: laws of thought (logic)
traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. That is, (1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or symbolically, ∼( p · ∼ p), in which ∼ means “not” and · means...

principle of identity logic -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Have you noticed that I provide actual evidence to back up my position, while all you provide is dogma?

Are you ignorant?

Yes, of course your ignorant.

Yeah. Let's find out.

Yeah. I noticed that you provided a citation.

Why is this evidence for?

What's is your position?

What's my alleged dogma?

You don't really tells anything here, do you?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
___________________________________________

Let's review your dogma, which was the notion that the proper term--remember?--for referring to this law is the law of identity.

But that's not always true. Why is that I wonder. Well, actually I don't wonder.

What do we see here? Why, what we see is my term that you said was improper: the principle of identity.

My term: the principle of identity.

Your term: the law of identity.

Which one of these is in your citation?

Uh-oh, that would be my term, my term, my term . . . not yours. Oops. Why is that?

And why are the other two expressed as the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle in this case, as juxtaposed against the principle of identity?

Why the shift?

In fact, more often than not they will all be referred to as laws on equal terms, as consider separately from the comprehensive principle.

And why are they listed contradiction, excluded middle (laws) and then identity (principle)?

They're normally listed identity, contradiction and excluded middle.

So what is this particular iteration of the three alluding to?

Essentially the comprehensive principle goes to ontological being. What is it? What is it's identity as opposed to the identity of all other things. Identity is the overarching theme!

1. Everything is. . . . (Everything that exists has a specific nature.)
2. Nothing can be. . . .
3. Everything must . . . be.

You see, we don't do two or three, until we one is established. Then we have the comprehensive principle.

But then dogmatic thinking is all you've got: copy and paste, regurgitation. You really have no clue. In fact, the discrete law of identity proper and the comprehensive principle of identity are much more complex than you seem to think, dogma man.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're ridiculous. You see that's not all you keep saying. You lied again. He called you a liar because you're a liar not because your lies are facts. And you're lying again pretending to understand something you don't. The bold part of your post on the laws is not how logicians understand the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic. Those are you words and they're wrong. That's you pretending again to understand something you don't understand. See you keep making other statements like that all the time. Then you quote something from Wikipedia that's right pretending it means the same thing when it doesn't and R's real knowledge in his post about constructive logic is written by someone who actually knows how to use is proves that you're lying again. What part of those facts show you to be a liar? All of them. I actually checked you out after reading your misunderstanding of the law of excluded middle in classical logic and spent a lot of time learning how it works because like R says it's very useful. There is nothing in constructive logic that makes the axioms of organic logic false or stops them from being universal axioms in organic logic and I watched you pretend not to understand that concepts proven in constructive logic have to conform back to organic logic in real applications, including the law of excluded middle. In one post you simply ignored what R told you and said something stupid again. And you didn't tell him how constructive logic works. He told you.

I do not give a fuck how logicians interpret things, nor do I appreciate idiots calling me a liar for not saying things that are irrelevant to my point.

That, by the way, is not an emotional response, it is a perfectly rational response to the idiocy you are spouting. I never once claimed that intuitionistic logic invalidated anything in classical logic, all I have ever said is that the Laws of Thought are not universal axioms, and provided an actual example of a type of logic that actually makes that point.

When you decide to stop misrepresenting my arguments I will respond to you like a thinking person. Until then, expect nothing but contempt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually "just is" is just another lie. It's like "what was" or "what's up, bro" when asked if you've paid your taxes.

Rawlings is lying when he claims that the law of identity just is?

Good to know.

How does it feel to have your stupidity twisted around and used against you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Saying there's one thing I know they don't know, is the same as saying there's nothing they know that I don't, at all, period? No, you're just the village retard hell bent on neener neener. Douche towel.

The only way your statement actually makes sense is if you have proof there is no god. Since you have constantly admitted you don't have that proof, your statement is an example of desperate you are to score a point against the village idiot, and how pathetically you fail at your goal.

 

[G.T.]

You're an irrelevant knucklehead.

Walking dead is on.

Fuck off my internet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Saying there's one thing I know they don't know, is the same as saying there's nothing they know that I don't, at all, period? No, you're just the village retard hell bent on neener neener. Douche towel.

What do you know about the existence of god that a person who actually has experienced god doesn't? Do you have some secret insight that is unavailable to anyone else? Why would an agnostic argue that they know there isn't a god anyway?