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

[NYcarbineer]

Wow! Now that's the juice. You just cleared up a few things for me. I'm a novice. But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics. The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants. What's the answer to that one?

The answer to that question is no, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible. The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.

One might as well ask the question can God not be God? Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The logical answer to these questions is no. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.

But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity and is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion God does not exist is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty because it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? A = B?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?

The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic. The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories: equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution. But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of revelational knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives. The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.

The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid. And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.

But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption isn't inherently contradictory. It just is as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.

(By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)

The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.

In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.

For example:

What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?

What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

What objectively absolute standard of morality?

Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is morally bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your moral code were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .

Why are you asking me that question? Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is? Are you stupid or something? You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true. Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it. No justification required? No explanation required? Really? You're asking me? Do you need me to wipe your ass too? Change your diapers? Blow your nose? Murder is not murder? Rape is not rape? Theft is not theft?

I'm asking you a very simple question. What objectively absolute standard of morality?

You made the claim. I want you to detail it.

1. Show us the standard, by examples.
2. Show us that they are objective.
3. Show us that they are absolute.
4. Then,

Show us why HUMANS could not reach such an objective consensus on their own if there were not an invisible, unrevealed, supernatural power in control of human thought.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding. You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round. I referred to your posts only because someone else did so. Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?

Seriously? Then explain to us how two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

A circle is a square?

A rectangle is a triangle?

Black is white?

Something is nothing?

Does the presumably universal agreement among humans that 1 + 1 = 2 need divine intervention to be a fact?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding. You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round. I referred to your posts only because someone else did so. Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?

Seriously? Then explain to us how two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

A circle is a square?

A rectangle is a triangle?

Black is white?

Something is nothing?

Yes, seriously. Asking me questions is not presenting evidence, unless you want to stipulate I am a qualified expert on the subject. I would recommend against that. Now, can you or can you not present actual objective evidence?

I've given you objective evidence. The standard definition of objective evidence is something that is universally apparent, reliably consistent, propositionally or tautologically axiomatic, rationally and/or empirically predicative or subjective to rational and/or empirical falsification. The classical laws of logic are all of those things. Moreover, collectively, they are the necessarily presupposed and singularly indispensable infrastructure for the enterprises of moral delineation, mathematics, geometry and science.

So, apparently, your idea of objective evidence is something nonstandard or inscrutable.

Hence, what is your idea of objective evidence? You are obliged to either falsify the laws of logic, which everybody with a sound and developmentally mature mind knows you can't do, or provide an objectively valid, alternative definition for objective evidence, if your claim that you are discussing the matter in all seriousness and in good faith is true. I'm not obliged to accommodate ignorance, obtuseness, irrationality or dishonesty.

If you can't or won't do either of those two things the fact of your erroneous baby talk is duly noted.

 

[sealybobo]

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Two more items of interest. . . .

First, your suggestion that "obvious defects" in biological systems detracts from the notion of a divine origin for terrestrial life is a teleological assertion. It presumes to known something about the manifestations that would be allowed to occur within a complex system created by a transcendentally supreme entity whose actuality you deny.

It's refreshing to see that we now have at least two atheists on this thread, one consciously, newpolitics, the other unwittingly, you, conceding that you do in fact recognize the independently existent idea of God as a Being of perfection universally apparent to all. That is to say, you concede your awareness of the fact that the idea of God objectively exists/imposes itself on our minds independent of our will when we contemplate the problem of origin.

While I appreciate your help in driving that point home, neither "obvious defects" in biological systems nor even the supposed mechanisms of evolution would have any bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a perfect transcendent Being. In fact, any being that would be subject to obey your utterly arbitrary and irrelevant teleological meanderings in its formulations of things or in its governance of things wouldn't be God.

Second, if you would provide a link showing that the hypothesis of abiogenesis has been verified via observation in accordance with “simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years”, I'd be thrilled to update my knowledge on that score.

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

 

[sealybobo]

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm asking you a very simple question. What objectively absolute standard of morality?

You made the claim. I want you to detail it.

1. Show us the standard, by examples.
2. Show us that they are objective.
3. Show us that they are absolute.
4. Then,

Show us why HUMANS could not reach such an objective consensus on their own if there were not an invisible, unrevealed, supernatural power in control of human thought.

You're concession that you cannot account for the fact of the universally absolute, rational forms and logical categories of human conscious if God doesn't exist or provide anything more than an utterly arbitrary and subjective rationale for normative relativism is duly noted. `

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Two more items of interest. . . .

First, your suggestion that "obvious defects" in biological systems detracts from the notion of a divine origin for terrestrial life is a teleological assertion. It presumes to known something about the manifestations that would be allowed to occur within a complex system created by a transcendentally supreme entity whose actuality you deny.

It's refreshing to see that we now have at least two atheists on this thread, one consciously, newpolitics, the other unwittingly, you, conceding that you do in fact recognize the independently existent idea of God as a Being of perfection universally apparent to all. That is to say, you concede your awareness of the fact that the idea of God objectively exists/imposes itself on our minds independent of our will when we contemplate the problem of origin.

While I appreciate your help in driving that point home, neither "obvious defects" in biological systems nor even the supposed mechanisms of evolution would have any bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a perfect transcendent Being. In fact, any being that would be subject to obey your utterly arbitrary and irrelevant teleological meanderings in its formulations of things or in its governance of things wouldn't be God.

Second, if you would provide a link showing that the hypothesis of abiogenesis has been verified via observation in accordance with “simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years”, I'd be thrilled to update my knowledge on that score.

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Comes back to the omnipotence paradox. Can a "perfect creator" create an imperfect being? Does the creation of an imperfect being mean that the "creator" is not perfect because what it "created" was imperfect? Notice that none of the theists dare to address these glaring paradoxes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ther eIs Not One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument Against The Existence Of God?

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding. You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round. I referred to your posts only because someone else did so. Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?

Seriously? Then explain to us how two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

A circle is a square?

A rectangle is a triangle?

Black is white?

Something is nothing?

Yes, seriously. Asking me questions is not presenting evidence, unless you want to stipulate I am a qualified expert on the subject. I would recommend against that. Now, can you or can you not present actual objective evidence?

I've given you objective evidence. The standard definition of objective evidence is something that is universally apparent, reliably consistent, propositionally or tautologically axiomatic, rationally and/or empirically predicative or subjective to rational and/or empirical falsification. The classical laws of logic are all of those things. Moreover, collectively, they are the necessarily presupposed and singularly indispensable infrastructure for the enterprises of moral delineation, mathematics, geometry and science.

So, apparently, your idea of objective evidence is something nonstandard or inscrutable.

Hence, what is your idea of objective evidence? You are obliged to either falsify the laws of logic, which everybody with a sound and developmentally mature mind knows you can't do, or provide an objectively valid, alternative definition for objective evidence, if your claim that you are discussing the matter in all seriousness and in good faith is true. I'm not obliged to accommodate ignorance, obtuseness, irrationality or dishonesty.

If you can't or won't do either of those two things the fact of your erroneous baby talk is duly noted.

No, you haven't. You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question. I do question them.

In this context, objective is defined by Webster's as: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

If I drop an object (assuming no other outside influences) it will move toward the center of the planet. It will not move up nor in a direction other than towards the center. I can demonstrate this repeatedly and within the perception of other observers. That is objective evidence of the existence of gravity.

Can you present objective evidence of the existence of God? If, as you claim, you have already done so then doing it again should not be a problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm asking you a very simple question. What objectively absolute standard of morality?

You made the claim. I want you to detail it.

1. Show us the standard, by examples.
2. Show us that they are objective.
3. Show us that they are absolute.
4. Then,

Show us why HUMANS could not reach such an objective consensus on their own if there were not an invisible, unrevealed, supernatural power in control of human thought.

You're concession that you cannot account for the fact of the universally absolute, rational forms and logical categories of human conscious if God doesn't exist or provide anything more than an utterly arbitrary and subjective rationale for normative relativism is duly noted. `

Your jibberish is duly noted.

Name ONE example of a moral absolute. Prove that it's absolute. Prove that it's objectively absolute.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding. You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round. I referred to your posts only because someone else did so. Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?

Seriously? Then explain to us how two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

A circle is a square?

A rectangle is a triangle?

Black is white?

Something is nothing?

Yes, seriously. Asking me questions is not presenting evidence, unless you want to stipulate I am a qualified expert on the subject. I would recommend against that. Now, can you or can you not present actual objective evidence?

I've given you objective evidence. The standard definition of objective evidence is something that is universally apparent, reliably consistent, propositionally or tautologically axiomatic, rationally and/or empirically predicative or subjective to rational and/or empirical falsification. The classical laws of logic are all of those things. Moreover, collectively, they are the necessarily presupposed and singularly indispensable infrastructure for the enterprises of moral delineation, mathematics, geometry and science.

So, apparently, your idea of objective evidence is something nonstandard or inscrutable.

Hence, what is your idea of objective evidence? You are obliged to either falsify the laws of logic, which everybody with a sound and developmentally mature mind knows you can't do, or provide an objectively valid, alternative definition for objective evidence, if your claim that you are discussing the matter in all seriousness and in good faith is true. I'm not obliged to accommodate ignorance, obtuseness, irrationality or dishonesty.

If you can't or won't do either of those two things the fact of your erroneous baby talk is duly noted.

BTW, logic is a set of rules - nothing more. In the absence of evidence it can get rather silly. For example... All humans can flap their arms and fly. I am a human. Therefore, I can flap my arms and fly. This is perfect logic. It is an example of a computer programmer's axiom... garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Foxfyre]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

Thank you for accepting my apology. Your post here certainly illustrates that you deserved one. I was entirely out of line.

I am not sure I can agree that Spinoza and Einstein were as ignorant as those who close their minds to possibilities. To observe and draw reasoned conclusions or to be curious or to consider possibilities is about as scientific as it gets.

Even defining ignorance has its pitfalls. We can go with some definitions that describe ignorance as lack of knowledge or information which, I believe, is how you intended it.

I tend to view ignorance by its broader definition of . "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." Spinoza and Einstein were not unaware of what they were observing nor were either uneducated in the world of science and were not uninformed in the concept of basic scientific principles. So can we conclude that their observations and conclusions drawn were ignorant?

I can observe a cat or dog or squirrel or bird contemplating a problem and working out a solution. Probably all of us who enjoy and appreciate critters have observed this. So am I ignorant to conclude that there is a form of intelligence there rather than pure instinct driving the process as some scientists would suggest? I have no way to test it or authenticate my conclusion. Or is that a reasoned conclusion based on my observation and experience even if it should subsequently be proved to be wrong?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god./QUOTE]
Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defect

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.

The [URL='http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_design#Counter_arguments']Teleological argument

, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization']self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.[/URL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design']

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding. You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round. I referred to your posts only because someone else did so. Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?

Seriously? Then explain to us how two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

A circle is a square?

A rectangle is a triangle?

Black is white?

Something is nothing?

s .[/URL][/URL]

[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design']consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization']self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’

I did read them. In neither of them was there a single objective fact. Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind. Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong. Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.

Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.

1. I didn't state a single objective fact?! Whaaaa? How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​

Caveat: this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons. Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


2. "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please. We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.

Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one. In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal". You are presenting no evidence of any kind. As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.

Why are you trolling this?

I'm not trolling, I'm responding. You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round. I referred to your posts only because someone else did so. Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?

Seriously? Then explain to us how two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

A circle is a square?

A rectangle is a triangle?

Black is white?

Something is nothing?

Why do you suppose humans need a supernatural power to be able to distinguish between a circle and a square,

and thus identify and name them accordingly?[/URL][/URL]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow! Now that's the juice. You just cleared up a few things for me. I'm a novice. But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics. The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants. What's the answer to that one?

The answer to that question is no, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible. The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.

One might as well ask the question can God not be God? Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The logical answer to these questions is no. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.

But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity and is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion God does not exist is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty because it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? A = B?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?

The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic. The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories: equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution. But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of revelational knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives. The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.

The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid. And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.

But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption isn't inherently contradictory. It just is as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.

(By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)

The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.

In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.

For example:

What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?

What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.

What objectively absolute standard of morality?

Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is morally bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your moral code were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .

Why are you asking me that question? Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is? Are you stupid or something? You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true. Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it. No justification required? No explanation required? Really? You're asking me? Do you need me to wipe your ass too? Change your diapers? Blow your nose? Murder is not murder? Rape is not rape? Theft is not theft?

My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours. Some aspects of morality might achieve the appearance of being objective and absolute because they are overwhelmingly supported by broad subjective consensus,

but they remain subjective conclusions nonetheless.

The fact that you cannot name a genuinely absolute moral standard is ample evidence of that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

Careful, Fox. There is scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.

PratchettFan's woefully confused. In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin. He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.

Instead, the substance of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification. That's all. But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause is material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.

This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering. He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging. More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .

I don't really think he is MDR. My initial response to his post you quoted here was a knee jerk response probably triggered by debating something close to this topic with some major league numbnuts elsewhere. But after reconsidering the point I think he is making here, I may or may not agree with it after some careful consideration, but I think he is coming from a reasoned place. And I think he meant no personal insults by his comments that initially ruffled my feathers a bit. Which prompted my apology to him in a subsequent post.

Well, no, he meant no insult, I'm sure. But if he is asserting, as it seems to me, that there is no evidence for God's existence . . . see my post below for why that's absurd.

Taking into account your lengthy and scholarly post preceding this one, it is not absurd at all when it comes to convincing somebody else. To you, to me, to Einstein, to billions, reason and logic tell us that all of this had to come from something as we rationally deduce that nothing comes from nothing. Reason tells us that there was some kind of intelligence involved in the origin. What that origin is however is undiscernible and unknowable UNLESS one has experienced the Creator that we choose to call God.

All your education, all your explanations, all your scholarly concepts and theological semantics--that is not criticism but only one admirer's observation --will not convince another soul that God is or has ever been. He/she who is determined not to believe will not see that you have presented any evidence at all. A closed mind is closed to all reason or logic or different possibilities and we Christians (and all other faiths) are not given power to open a mind determined to be closed. Only the possessor of that closed mind can do that.

So in my opinion, we do the Lord no favors by criticizing or condemning those who will not see. All we can do is put the idea, the vision, the truth out there in hopes that a light bulb will come on or curiosity will be peaked. And those who choose to be blind will be able to see.

If we had to be designed by a Creator, why didn't God have to be designed by a Creator?

You start with a rule that all things complex had to have been designed, but then you summarily abandon that rule when the question of God's existence comes up.

 

[PratchettFan]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

Thank you for accepting my apology. Your post here certainly illustrates that you deserved one. I was entirely out of line.

I am not sure I can agree that Spinoza and Einstein were as ignorant as those who close their minds to possibilities. To observe and draw reasoned conclusions or to be curious or to consider possibilities is about as scientific as it gets.

Even defining ignorance has its pitfalls. We can go with some definitions that describe ignorance as lack of knowledge or information which, I believe, is how you intended it.

I tend to view ignorance by its broader definition of . "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." Spinoza and Einstein were not unaware of what they were observing nor were either uneducated in the world of science and were not uninformed in the concept of basic scientific principles. So can we conclude that their observations and conclusions drawn were ignorant?

I can observe a cat or dog or squirrel or bird contemplating a problem and working out a solution. Probably all of us who enjoy and appreciate critters have observed this. So am I ignorant to conclude that there is a form of intelligence there rather than pure instinct driving the process as some scientists would suggest? I have no way to test it or authenticate my conclusion. Or is that a reasoned conclusion based on my observation and experience even if it should subsequently be proved to be wrong?

Ignorance, as I am applying it, is just being uninformed. I would not suggest that either Spinoza or Einstein were uneducated. But as to the question of God, or whatever word one wants to use, we are all ignorant and neither of those gentlemen were an exception. According to the Pew survey in 2009, 46% of physicists are Atheists. Clearly highly educated people with more than a passing understanding of Einstein. If Einstein actually presented evidence in support of God, don't you think that number might be a bit lower?

I like to consider myself educated and capable. I have rebuilt car engines, repaired scuba equipment, I can interpret contractual language and wax poetic on the subject of sovereign immunity until I bore you to tears. But if someone needs brain surgery asking me to attempt it would be tantamount to murder. In that arena I am ignorant, and dangerously so. However, I recognize my ignorance and will refrain from picking up a scalpel. Along those lines and in response to your question I can only say.... I don't know. But I do think it highly likely critters engage in critical thinking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither M. D. can prove positively that God exists, nor Pratchettfan can prove that God does not exist. They cannot provide the factual evidence. Keep asking them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

Careful, Fox. There is scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.

PratchettFan's woefully confused. In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin. He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.

Instead, the substance of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification. That's all. But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause is material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.

This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering. He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging. More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .

I don't really think he is MDR. My initial response to his post you quoted here was a knee jerk response probably triggered by debating something close to this topic with some major league numbnuts elsewhere. But after reconsidering the point I think he is making here, I may or may not agree with it after some careful consideration, but I think he is coming from a reasoned place. And I think he meant no personal insults by his comments that initially ruffled my feathers a bit. Which prompted my apology to him in a subsequent post.

Well, no, he meant no insult, I'm sure. But if he is asserting, as it seems to me, that there is no evidence for God's existence . . . see my post below for why that's absurd.

Taking into account your lengthy and scholarly post preceding this one, it is not absurd at all when it comes to convincing somebody else. To you, to me, to Einstein, to billions, reason and logic tell us that all of this had to come from something as we rationally deduce that nothing comes from nothing. Reason tells us that there was some kind of intelligence involved in the origin. What that origin is however is undiscernible and unknowable UNLESS one has experienced the Creator that we choose to call God.

All your education, all your explanations, all your scholarly concepts and theological semantics--that is not criticism but only one admirer's observation --will not convince another soul that God is or has ever been. He/she who is determined not to believe will not see that you have presented any evidence at all. A closed mind is closed to all reason or logic or different possibilities and we Christians (and all other faiths) are not given power to open a mind determined to be closed. Only the possessor of that closed mind can do that.

So in my opinion, we do the Lord no favors by criticizing or condemning those who will not see. All we can do is put the idea, the vision, the truth out there in hopes that a light bulb will come on or curiosity will be peaked. And those who choose to be blind will be able to see.

If we had to be designed by a Creator, why didn't God have to be designed by a Creator?

You start with a rule that all things complex had to have been designed, but then you summarily abandon that rule when the question of God's existence comes up.

I have never said we had to be designed by a Creator.

I have only argued that it is observable and reasonable to believe in the possibility of some form of intelligence guiding the origins and processes of the universe. I do not pretend to know the origin of that intelligence. But I call it God. I really don't think God cares what we call it however.

 

[PratchettFan]

Neither M. D. can prove positively that God exists, nor Pratchettfan can prove that God does not exist. They cannot provide the factual evidence. Keep asking them.

Don't ask me. I've got nothing.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

Thank you for accepting my apology. Your post here certainly illustrates that you deserved one. I was entirely out of line.

I am not sure I can agree that Spinoza and Einstein were as ignorant as those who close their minds to possibilities. To observe and draw reasoned conclusions or to be curious or to consider possibilities is about as scientific as it gets.

Even defining ignorance has its pitfalls. We can go with some definitions that describe ignorance as lack of knowledge or information which, I believe, is how you intended it.

I tend to view ignorance by its broader definition of . "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." Spinoza and Einstein were not unaware of what they were observing nor were either uneducated in the world of science and were not uninformed in the concept of basic scientific principles. So can we conclude that their observations and conclusions drawn were ignorant?

I can observe a cat or dog or squirrel or bird contemplating a problem and working out a solution. Probably all of us who enjoy and appreciate critters have observed this. So am I ignorant to conclude that there is a form of intelligence there rather than pure instinct driving the process as some scientists would suggest? I have no way to test it or authenticate my conclusion. Or is that a reasoned conclusion based on my observation and experience even if it should subsequently be proved to be wrong?

Ignorance, as I am applying it, is just being uninformed. I would not suggest that either Spinoza or Einstein were uneducated. But as to the question of God, or whatever word one wants to use, we are all ignorant and neither of those gentlemen were an exception. According to the Pew survey in 2009, 46% of physicists are Atheists. Clearly highly educated people with more than a passing understanding of Einstein. If Einstein actually presented evidence in support of God, don't you think that number might be a bit lower?

I like to consider myself educated and capable. I have rebuilt car engines, repaired scuba equipment, I can interpret contractual language and wax poetic on the subject of sovereign immunity until I bore you to tears. But if someone needs brain surgery asking me to attempt it would be tantamount to murder. In that arena I am ignorant, and dangerously so. However, I recognize my ignorance and will refrain from picking up a scalpel. Along those lines and in response to your question I can only say.... I don't know. But I do think it highly likely critters engage in critical thinking.

Okay, point understand and accepted. Let's go with your definition of ignorance as being uninformed. I am comfortable with that.

But inability to fully understand or execute something is not the same thing as being ignorant. You accept that brain surgery is a reality and you know what it is for and possess at least some sense of what it is intended to accomplish. Ignorance in HOW to do brain surgery is not the same thing as being ignorant about brain surgery.

Now let's say you are a strong skeptic about whether we have ever been visited by beings from other parts of the universe. You hear a number of people who reported sightings of what they described as flying saucers, but you shrug that off as them most likely seeing something they mistook for a flying saucer or whatever. But you are truly ignorant of whether what they reported is the real deal or not.

But one day you are out walking in the fog and you witness what for want of a better explanation is a saucer shaped craft landing in the distance. You see it. You hear it. Your vision is partially obscured by the fog so you can't make out detail clearly, but you see what appears to be some kind of living things moving around the craft. And then like a flash it is gone.

If you witnessed such a thing, you still don't know whether to believe what you saw was an alien spacecraft or there is some other practical explanation. But you are now curious. You no longer so easily dismiss the testimony of others. You are likely more open to the possibilities. You are less ignorant. And yet you have absolutely zero way to prove to any other soul what you witnessed. And if they are skeptics or disbelievers, they'll probably dismiss your testimony too.

For me God is like that. Something that is not really understood but is made known to me through up close and personal experience. And since none of us can prove to another soul what it is that we experience, it is something that has to be experienced in order to be understood at all, however poorly. And once it is experienced, the testimony of others relating the same kinds of experience becomes much more credible.