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

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I don't discount what you are saying. I have been practicing meditation for many years and I have experienced certain mind states which go beyond normal experience. Was I in contact with some higher plane of existence? I don't know. To be honest, I don't really care. Perhaps I should, but I don't.

All I can say is from an objective standpoint, experiences of this nature are only evidence that we experience some things we don't understand. They might well be just the way our brains work, or they might be something else. Until we eliminate the internal solution (its all biochemistry) it can't be held out as evidence of outside influences without other objective evidence to support it.

This in no way reduces the experience or should defer belief. Quite the contrary. Belief is a reasonable and rational response to such things - within moderation.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

If all is subjective than nothing is objective, and there could be no such thing as objective evidence. Not only would the delineation of morality be impossible, but the enterprises of communication, mathematics, geometry and science would be impossible. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally absolute. The laws of logic are irrefutable: A = A (identity), A = not-A (contradiction), A or ~A (the excluded middle).

I already established what the absolute standard for morality is: the ramifications of the universally absolute laws of logic grounded in the being of God. It's you will not and cannot justify your moral mumbo-jumbo. Check?

Normative relativism/universal subjectivism: there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely false. Normative relativism/universal subjectivism is rank irrationalism. If all is relative, which it is clearly an inherently self-negating and contradictory assertion, than nothing can be credibly asserted to be true, including 1 + 1 = 2.

And that ends my dialogue with you cognitive psychopaths of relativism who seem to be operating under the impression that prominent atheists in the hard sciences are operational relativists. They are not and have nothing but contempt for you relativist ninnies.

Foxfyre, scripture draws a distinction between those to whom the intimate things of God are foolishness as these things go the a higher order of revelatory knowledge of salvation and fellowship in Christ, not to the universally apparent imperatives of human consciousness. The persons who can no longer make out the latter are those who have been turned over to a reprobate mind, a form of psychopathy, due to their prolonged, habitual denial of these fundamental imperatives. Only a relatively small number of the atheists on this forum are not reprobate minds. .

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If all is subjective than nothing is objective, and there could be no such thing as objective evidence. Not only would the delineation of morality be impossible, but the enterprises of communication, mathematics, geometry and science would be impossible. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally absolute. The laws of logic are irrefutable: A = A (identity), A = not-A (contradiction), A or ~A (the excluded middle).

I already established what the absolute standard for morality is: the ramifications of the universally absolute laws of logic grounded in the being of God. It's you will not and cannot justify your moral mumbo-jumbo. Check?

Normative relativism/universal subjectivism: there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely false. Normative relativism/universal subjectivism is rank irrationalism. If all is relative, which it is clearly an inherently self-negating and contradictory assertion, than nothing can be credibly asserted to be true, including 1 + 1 = 2.

And that ends my dialogue with you cognitive psychopaths of relativism who seem to be operating under the impression that prominent atheists in the hard sciences are operational relativists. They are not and have nothing but contempt for you relativist ninnies.

Foxfyre, scripture draws a distinction between those to whom the intimate things of God are foolishness as these things go the a higher order of revelatory knowledge of salvation and fellowship in Christ, not to the universally apparent imperatives of human consciousness. The persons who can no longer make out the latter are those who have been turned over to a reprobate mind, a form of psychopathy, due to their prolonged, habitual denial of these fundamental imperatives. Only a relatively small number of the atheists on this forum are not reprobate minds. .

All I asked for was what you believe is a genuine example of a purely objective moral absolute,

and further, what your proof that is a moral absolute.

You need to clear that hurdle even before you get to the rest of your flawed argument.

 

[Rikurzhen]

My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.

Not so fast with this Ghost in the Machine business:

“Utilitarian moral judgments are those that save a bigger number of people even if it means an innocent person might be harmed in the process,” explains Marsh, the first author of the study published today in the online journal PLoS ONE.

Marsh and her team found that people with a long allele of a particular gene (a serotonin transporter) rated unintentionally harming someone as more acceptable than did people with short allele carriers of the same gene.

Study participants who carry the short allele version of the gene were reluctant to endorse actions resulting in foreseen harm to an innocent individual.
​

Your mind, from which morals spring, is grounded by the constraints of biology. The world you know is constrained by biology.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. If you had the smarts to grasp what has been written by me on this thread you would know that your objections are conceptual misapprehensions of divine perfection and teleological assumptions touching on soteriological matters that you know nothing about due to a mind that is as closed as a slammed-shut door. We are not interested in engaging you on the issues because in addition to that you are a known pathological liar who does not discuss anything in good faith. Check?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then the lack of evidence of a God is no different than the lack of evidence of dozens of Gods, or thousands, or trillions.

You are correct, just not for the reasons you think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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’.

None of that changes the fact that, logically, it is a valid argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

First off, I challenge you to show me where the God of Abraham ever said He was perfect.

That said, what is your definition of perfect? Is it possible for something to be perfect when looked at for a specific purpose, and imperfect for another? For example, a pair of pliers is pretty much perfect for what it is designed for, but we still have needle nosed pliers to use when regular pliers just don't work, does that make regular pliers any less useful? Does the fact that we cannot use needle nose pliers for some of the things we use regular pliers for make them imperfect?

It appears to me that you are not actually thinking things through here, you are just spouting things you heard from other people, and not really considering all possibilities. That is pretty typical since most people never learn to think outside their belief system.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Bravo.

It amazes me how few people understand this simple fact. Logical arguments can be valid even if the premises are false and the conclusion is also false. That is why any challenge, like the OPs, to provide an example of a valid argument is so stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Actually, they both can provide such evidence. The real question is how we evaluate the evidence both for, and against, the existence of god, not whether or not it exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

C'mon.

Many people argue that evolution is evidence against the existence of god because the process doesn't need anyone to step in and guide each step of the ladder. Then we have the fact that no one has recently been turning water into wine, or healing people who are paralyzed. That all counts as evidence against the existence of god. The problem here is that people forget that evidence, or proof, does not always lead to the same conclusion. They should really look into forensics so they understand how evidence works.

For example, if the police find you fingerprints at a murder scene they can use that to suggest you had something to do with the murder. You can then point out that you were at that place a week before because you bought a used computer from the murder victim, and that you were actually in another city at the time of the murder. That doesn't make your fingerprints at the scene go away, but it does show how evidence can exist, yet not actually mean what people think it means.

 

[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-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’.

Non of that changes the fact that, logically, it is a valid argument.

What makes it a valid argument? That is having a sound basis in logic or fact? If your argument did that science wouldn't argue with you.

The fact is 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.

Are you trying to suggest that Mary being a virgin and Jesus rising from the dead and Noah living 350 years are facts? None of these things have a sound basis in logic or fact.

 

[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.

Actually, they both can provide such evidence. The real question is how we evaluate the evidence both for, and against, the existence of god, not whether or not it exists.

I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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’.

Non of that changes the fact that, logically, it is a valid argument.

What makes it a valid argument? That is having a sound basis in logic or fact? If your argument did that science wouldn't argue with you.

The rules of logic which state that, as long as the truth of the premises, which is automatically assumed, entails the truth of the conclusion, the argument is valid. Since the premises of the teleological argument lead to the conclusion that the universe was made, the argument is valid, even if you can prove that the premises are false. This is why I always mock idiots, like you, that assume that logic is applicable to the universe.

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid. Under such conditions it would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises.

An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid".

An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Validity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Any other stupid questions?

By the way, the rest of your post is irrelevant to the point I made that the argument is actually valid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.

I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.

Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then the lack of evidence of a God is no different than the lack of evidence of dozens of Gods, or thousands, or trillions.

You are correct, just not for the reasons you think.

Then list the reasons you think I think.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.

I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.

Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.

Been through this hundreds of times with folks like you.

Your argument is false, but you are certainly fitting the stereotype of the person you illustrate in your last paragraph.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As long as the truth of the premises, which is automatically And assumed, entails the truth of the conclusion, the argument is valid. And neither extreme can provide conclusively with factual evidence that proves the truth of the conclusion, which then conclusively undermines the truth of the premises.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.

Not so fast with this Ghost in the Machine business:

“Utilitarian moral judgments are those that save a bigger number of people even if it means an innocent person might be harmed in the process,” explains Marsh, the first author of the study published today in the online journal PLoS ONE.

Marsh and her team found that people with a long allele of a particular gene (a serotonin transporter) rated unintentionally harming someone as more acceptable than did people with short allele carriers of the same gene.

Study participants who carry the short allele version of the gene were reluctant to endorse actions resulting in foreseen harm to an innocent individual.
​

Your mind, from which morals spring, is grounded by the constraints of biology. The world you know is constrained by biology.

Then if it's all biological that is substantial evidence that a supernatural being's intervention is wholly unnecessary.