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

[Justin Davis]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

 

[sealybobo]

It's in the Bible!

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

is that the christian / bible or a different one ? - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.

as is the presumption of the threads title.

.

What are you talking about? After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?

Obviously, you're clueless. Your pontificating and bible thumping aside, you have never come close to understanding the divide that exists between your pwoofs of the gods and a logical argument.

That's about an idea that's in the Bible, not a proof of God's existence. Why are you always clueless about what people are talking about? Oh, that's right ...... you're an idiot.

See, me and Hollie are at a disadvantage. We have to keep track of what each of you believes because none of you believes exactly the same. Unless you believe everything the bible says? But even then you might have a different interpretation of the same verse.

Anyways, point is this. We can only point to the ridiculous stories of your bibles and korans to show you why your specific god is made up.

Now you want to switch to generic god? Why? Are you admitting the bible is man made up? If so, then now we have to prove to you that the entire concept is made up? Besides your holy books full of lies, what evidence do you have?

Oh yea, because you can't imagine it any other way. No shit! That's why our idiot ancestors came up with god. No other reason. Not any that don't come with some fatal flaw.

 

[sealybobo]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Why can't science see what created us? Why can't we figure it out? Is this "creator" intelligent? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that. We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical. Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue. Right? You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't. Right?

 

[dblack]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Why can't science see what created us? Why can't we figure it out? Is this "creator" intelligent? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that. We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical. Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue. Right? You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't. Right?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

 

[Justin Davis]

It's in the Bible!

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

is that the christian / bible or a different one ? - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.

as is the presumption of the threads title.

.

What are you talking about? After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?

Obviously, you're clueless. Your pontificating and bible thumping aside, you have never come close to understanding the divide that exists between your pwoofs of the gods and a logical argument.

That's about an idea that's in the Bible, not a proof of God's existence. Why are you always clueless about what people are talking about? Oh, that's right ...... you're an idiot.

See, me and Hollie are at a disadvantage. We have to keep track of what each of you believes because none of you believes exactly the same. Unless you believe everything the bible says? But even then you might have a different interpretation of the same verse.

Anyways, point is this. We can only point to the ridiculous stories of your bibles and korans to show you why your specific god is made up.

Now you want to switch to generic god? Why? Are you admitting the bible is man made up? If so, then now we have to prove to you that the entire concept is made up? Besides your holy books full of lies, what evidence do you have?

Oh yea, because you can't imagine it any other way. No shit! That's why our idiot ancestors came up with god. No other reason. Not any that don't come with some fatal flaw.

Hollie is at a grave disadvantage because he's an idiot always blurting the same kinds of things regardless of what anyone is talking about. He's a hateful, ill-mannered barbarian.

When you "point to ridiculous stories" presumably you're talking about miraculous events attributed to God, right?

 

[dblack]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

 

[Justin Davis]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

I agree with that. I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense. Maybe I didn't say it right. The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea. Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?

 

[dblack]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Why can't science see what created us? Why can't we figure it out? Is this "creator" intelligent? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that. We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical. Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue. Right? You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't. Right?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

I agree with that. I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense. Maybe I didn't say it right. The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea. Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?

Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.

 

[sealybobo]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Why can't science see what created us? Why can't we figure it out? Is this "creator" intelligent? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that. We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical. Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue. Right? You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't. Right?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

How we were created is exactly the question our ancient ancestors asked and they came up with "must have been a god or creator".

The other reason it matters is theists have a bogus creation story which leads us to believe that the story was the best they could come up with back at that time when they didn't know about science.

Why did the lightening strike down grampa? Zeus wanted him. Why did the drought or famine kill so many of us? Because we were bad. The Lion dragged dad off? That's ok, he's with the other warriors in the sky and one day we will join him.

 

[Justin Davis]

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Why can't science see what created us? Why can't we figure it out? Is this "creator" intelligent? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that. We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical. Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue. Right? You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't. Right?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

I agree with that. I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense. Maybe I didn't say it right. The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea. Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?

Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.

Right. But also once you say "I exist" you realize that I didn't create myself so who or what did? We also see immediately that either the apparent material world did or something immaterial did. That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

 

[sealybobo]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

 

[sealybobo]

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Why can't science see what created us? Why can't we figure it out? Is this "creator" intelligent? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that. We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical. Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue. Right? You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't. Right?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

I agree with that. I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense. Maybe I didn't say it right. The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea. Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?

Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.

Right. But also once you say "I exist" you realize that I didn't create myself so who or what did? We also see immediately that either the apparent material world did or something immaterial did. That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

If that's all you guys mean by god then ok fine. We see no evidence of a creator but it is certainly possible. Does it matter if we believe?

It's when you start telling us that god came and talked to your ancestors and said if anyone from here on out doesn't believe they go to hell that we start having problems.

 

[dblack]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

 

[dblack]

... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.

 

[Justin Davis]

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Why can't science see what created us? Why can't we figure it out? Is this "creator" intelligent? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that. We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical. Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue. Right? You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't. Right?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

How we were created is exactly the question our ancient ancestors asked and they came up with "must have been a god or creator".

The other reason it matters is theists have a bogus creation story which leads us to believe that the story was the best they could come up with back at that time when they didn't know about science.

Why did the lightening strike down grampa? Zeus wanted him. Why did the drought or famine kill so many of us? Because we were bad. The Lion dragged dad off? That's ok, he's with the other warriors in the sky and one day we will join him.

sealybobo, why are you afraid to just simply state the facts of existence and origin in an objective way without bias? A rose is a rose. Keep it simple and objective. When you go off on your tangents making subjective, personal opinions about the origin of existence as if they were absolute truths you're essentially claiming to be the origin of the universe.

Did you cause your own existence? No you didn't. Do you recognize like everybody else that there must be something uncaused that has always existed either material or immaterial? Yes you do. Do you believe this something is material? Yes you do. And so you also believe that it could be the other option, immaterial? Yes you do.

There you have it. That's the situation.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

 

[Justin Davis]

... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.

What are they? I'll tell you what they are. They are variations that all come down to these two options. There are no other options. That's it.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws.

Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Why there is no god

 

[dblack]

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Well, you come back around to my point. The 'self' exists "only in your mind". Does that mean it isn't real? My own view is that gods, if they do exist as distinct entities, are something like distributed minds, populating the brains of believers.

 

[Justin Davis]

Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.

Not at all. I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator." The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence. The origin of my existence could be material or personal. This is the same idea you pointed: the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically. Right?

Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Science doesn't say anything. Science doesn't even do anything. We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical. sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.