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

[emilynghiem]

They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.

Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.

You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.

Yep. The apologetics thing is typically replete with bluster and such pompous absolutes as: "Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves."

Well I don't say that Hollie.
See other post where I state that the
Christian message of forgiveness and the healing impact on humanity
CAN be proven scientifically.

And I don't expect you to believe that without proof,
so yes I ask to prove it first.

So you cannot keep making this argument
that Christianity has to be accepted without proof.

That's not true, it can be explained, proven
and accepted based on Scientific Method to include secular gentiles
under natural laws.

This is a Perfectly Valid path to the same understanding as taught in Christianity.
Nothing wrong with using the Scientific Method.

With secular gentiles, it is necessary.

 

[Hollie]

There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.

There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.

This is kind of self contradictory.

If god is real, it's not supernatural.

If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.

If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.

You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.

Oh but it IS real, and it's natural. That's the part you can't refute. You keep posting your opinion as if it's fact. Your mind has closed itself to possibilities for faith in disbelief. I don't need your permission to be spiritual, whether you think I am dangerous or not. In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.

Oh but it IS real, and it's natural...."because I say so."

There's really nothing to refute. You make outrageous claims. You have convinced yourself that your claims are true. You offer no support for those claims. Yet, you insist your communications with spirit realms are true. Whether you're delusional or schizophrenic is open for interpretation.

So is that it? Someone tells me “Yeah – the gods have spoken to me” is all I'm required to hear so as to “believe”? That sounds like a simple Santa Clause (purposeful misspelling) model that “less than critically thinking” people who are not particularly discriminating, can embrace without the burdensome task of actually examining the statements. There is no valid reason to presume that supernaturalism / spirit realms crowded with angry gods are the cause of existence. I make no claims about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, "naturalism" relies on rationality and reason to uphold itself. You spirit realm'ists require that rationality and reason are broken and only through belief in magic and supernaturalism can we access your silly spirit realms of gods.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.

Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.

You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.

Yep. The apologetics thing is typically replete with bluster and such pompous absolutes as: "Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves."

"or prove it to be true by saying its not true"

The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.

But you do know "the five things," and you do know they can't be logically eliminated. That has been proven. In fact, because of the title Justin gave those things, which never occurred me, I'm going to repost them under that title.

Look, I know a number of atheists who are friends of mine. The same folks I knew when I was an atheist, however, in truth, an atheist with a head full of unexamined ideas. I have shown some of them the same things I'm talking about on this thread. Probably because we have a history of friendship I was able to say to them: "I'm your friend. I love you. I'm not going to tell something I don't believe is true or anything that is inscrutable, subjective mush. You know that. What can it hurt to take a look at this stuff?"

(When QW tried to tell you that nonsense about the all-knowing-not-all-knowing computer, you knew that was gibberish. I'm not asking you to see or accept anything like that. I have never pretended to be able to prove subjective crap like that.)

The friends of mine who took a look, that were willing to back out of their paradigm and enter the world of first principles regarding the problems of existence and origin, honesty and objectively, are not atheists anymore. Three of them are theist-leaning agnostics reading the Bible to see if the same things I showed them to be in everybody's mind are also listed as such in the Bible. The other gave his life to Christ and is reading those very same things as such in the Bible. I'm not telling you I can prove these things in terms of direct evidence. That would be a lie. QW is always hinting at knowing things that the rest us can't see or understand. It's all subjective mush. I'd like to see the mathematics he's talking about.

But you know the things I'm talking about are universally apparent, based on inferential evidence that is not subjective, but objective in nature. I'm also telling you that they are listed in the Bible as being the things that are in our minds, everybody's minds.

God is talking to you. "I AM. I'm here." There's no good reason to assume that such objectively and universally apparent proofs based on inferential evidence that is both rational and empirical in nature is not backed, as Justin puts it, by actual substance. You're only real objection is that the things you know to be in your head just so (objectively and universally apparent proofs based on inferential evidence that is both rational and empirical in nature) are not based on direct evidence in the scientific sense. Okay. But you forget the fact that scientific theory, in and of itself, is inferential in nature, and that science is limited to only dealing with direct physical evidence about material things. That means science is necessarily premised on a metaphysical apriority of one kind or another, yet you inferentially presuppose your metaphysical apriority for science without any qualms. That's curious. I don't do that blindly, "gluckly." Do you even know what your metaphysical apriority for science is? If your apriority is wrong, you're going to get much of your soft science, as opposed to the hard, mathematical sciences of physics and cosmology, wrong, which is something QW doesn't really understand either.

 

[Boss]

There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.

This is kind of self contradictory.

If god is real, it's not supernatural.

If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.

If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.

You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.

Oh but it IS real, and it's natural. That's the part you can't refute. You keep posting your opinion as if it's fact. Your mind has closed itself to possibilities for faith in disbelief. I don't need your permission to be spiritual, whether you think I am dangerous or not. In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.

Oh but it IS real, and it's natural...."because I say so."

There's really nothing to refute. You make outrageous claims. You have convinced yourself that your claims are true. You offer no support for those claims. Yet, you insist your communications with spirit realms are true. Whether you're delusional or schizophrenic is open for interpretation.

So is that it? Someone tells me “Yeah – the gods have spoken to me” is all I'm required to hear so as to “believe”? That sounds like a simple Santa Clause (purposeful misspelling) model that “less than critically thinking” people who are not particularly discriminating, can embrace without the burdensome task of actually examining the statements. There is no valid reason to presume that supernaturalism / spirit realms crowded with angry gods are the cause of existence. I make no claims about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, "naturalism" relies on rationality and reason to uphold itself. You spirit realm'ists require that rationality and reason are broken and only through belief in magic and supernaturalism can we access your silly spirit realms of gods.

No, it's real and natural because it is real and natural. No outrageous claim has been made. My communication with the spiritual realm is true and I am neither delusional or schizo.

I've not required you to do anything. The truth is not dependent upon whether Hollie accepts it. I don't know anything about supernatural realms crowded with angry gods, but spiritual nature created physical because there is no other logical explanation.

You do indeed make claims about our existence, you claim that there is no God or spiritual nature and that physical nature created itself from nothingness. You've not supported your claim with any evidence, if that's what you meant. You are the one who believes in magic and supernaturalism. Rationality and reason say that the physical couldn't have created itself if it didn't exist. The only rational argument is that spiritual nature created the physical.

 

[BreezeWood]

In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain.

There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.

some would disagree with your interpenetration for the residence of the living Spirit - certainly Flora, as having no "brain" but does have a heart ...

at any rate prove the Spirit resides in any particular organ or that the heart is not commiserate with emotions, when "racing".

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective. Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either. That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right. It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W. because he's an idiot. Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another. That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves. This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see. He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies. Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.

I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.

Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.

It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe. Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God? The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is the evidence.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why do we have the idea of God? Why does the atheist have the idea of God?

Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.

I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.

Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?

From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.

Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.

Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective. Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it. The universe is objective evidence of God's existence. It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms. What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective. The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective. Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe. Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The a-theist sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.

The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.
No... The universe is only objective evidence the universe appears to exist to those who have seen it and believe it to be true.

What I am talking about is not subjective evidence vs. objective evidence in a courtroom. All evidence is evaluated by a human who forms an opinion. That opinion may be formed on the basis of all kinds of perspectives and views, prejudices, preconceptions and bias. All evidence of any kind is subject to this.

Atheists reject the spiritual evidence that overwhelmingly proves God. In fact, they don't even consider it evidence, they don't believe in spiritual nature. They demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical, but physical is the only "exist" they comprehend.

Boss, this is bilge. There is no such thing as any spiritual evidence for nonbelievers. Are you a Christian?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You do indeed make claims about our existence, you claim that there is no God or spiritual nature and that physical nature created itself from nothingness. You've not supported your claim with any evidence, if that's what you meant. You are the one who believes in magic and supernaturalism. Rationality and reason say that the physical couldn't have created itself if it didn't exist. The only rational argument is that spiritual nature created the physical.

You just made the cosmological argument. That argument is based on the PHYSICAL evidence of the fact of the universe's existence and the subsequent, rational imperatives of existence and origin, only your argument is unconvincing because you keep alluding to the PHYSICAL evidence for God's existence (the cosmos), fly right past the imperatives, and then say the existence of the cosmos its not evidence, but that there's some mysterious, spiritual evidence. The latter is not the evidence; it's the inference based on the evidence. That's why these guys are running circles around you. You're not making any sense, but you're close to the truth. Go back to the imperatives. Stop talking nonsense about evidence. You are clueless as to what evidence and proofs are. You're confusing the difference between direct and inferential evidence, either of which can be subjective or objective. Dude. The atheist has objectively and universally apparent proofs based on inferential evidence that is both rational and empirical in nature: he knows these things. Stop telling him he doesn't. That is false.

When the atheist denies that God exists is he denying the existence of the idea of God? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! He's necessarily acknowledging the existence of the idea of God in his very denial. DUDE!

And what is his understanding of the potentially of God's existence based on? The fact of the PHYSICAL cosmos's existence! DUDE!

You're not building a coherent ground for belief, but destroying it.

 

[Boss]

Boss, this is bilge. There is no such thing as any spiritual evidence for nonbelievers. Are you a Christian?

Well hey, you seem like a pretty smart fella... why don't you elaborate on what exactly was bilge and why? Then we can discuss that.

There is no such thing as any spiritual evidence for nonbelievers.
There is no such thing as EVIDENCE until someone believes it is evidence. I never said there was spiritual evidence for nonbelievers, a non-believer wouldn't even accept physical evidence for that which they didn't believe in. I said that non-believers do not acknowledge spiritual evidence because they do not acknowledge spiritual nature and do not comprehend spiritual existence.

And no, I am not a Christian or follower of any organized religion. I am a Spiritualist.

 

[Hollie]

This is kind of self contradictory.

If god is real, it's not supernatural.

If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.

If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.

You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.

Oh but it IS real, and it's natural. That's the part you can't refute. You keep posting your opinion as if it's fact. Your mind has closed itself to possibilities for faith in disbelief. I don't need your permission to be spiritual, whether you think I am dangerous or not. In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.

Oh but it IS real, and it's natural...."because I say so."

There's really nothing to refute. You make outrageous claims. You have convinced yourself that your claims are true. You offer no support for those claims. Yet, you insist your communications with spirit realms are true. Whether you're delusional or schizophrenic is open for interpretation.

So is that it? Someone tells me “Yeah – the gods have spoken to me” is all I'm required to hear so as to “believe”? That sounds like a simple Santa Clause (purposeful misspelling) model that “less than critically thinking” people who are not particularly discriminating, can embrace without the burdensome task of actually examining the statements. There is no valid reason to presume that supernaturalism / spirit realms crowded with angry gods are the cause of existence. I make no claims about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, "naturalism" relies on rationality and reason to uphold itself. You spirit realm'ists require that rationality and reason are broken and only through belief in magic and supernaturalism can we access your silly spirit realms of gods.

No, it's real and natural because it is real and natural. No outrageous claim has been made. My communication with the spiritual realm is true and I am neither delusional or schizo.

I've not required you to do anything. The truth is not dependent upon whether Hollie accepts it. I don't know anything about supernatural realms crowded with angry gods, but spiritual nature created physical because there is no other logical explanation.

You do indeed make claims about our existence, you claim that there is no God or spiritual nature and that physical nature created itself from nothingness. You've not supported your claim with any evidence, if that's what you meant. You are the one who believes in magic and supernaturalism. Rationality and reason say that the physical couldn't have created itself if it didn't exist. The only rational argument is that spiritual nature created the physical.

Sheesh. It's as though you're being paid by the fundamentalist Christian ministries to press the fundie agenda.

 

[Boss]

You do indeed make claims about our existence, you claim that there is no God or spiritual nature and that physical nature created itself from nothingness. You've not supported your claim with any evidence, if that's what you meant. You are the one who believes in magic and supernaturalism. Rationality and reason say that the physical couldn't have created itself if it didn't exist. The only rational argument is that spiritual nature created the physical.

You just made the cosmological argument. That argument is based on the PHYSICAL evidence of the fact of the universe's existence and the subsequent, rational imperatives of existence and origin, only your argument is unconvincing because you keep alluding to the PHYSICAL evidence for God's existence (the cosmos), fly right past the imperatives, and then say the existence of the cosmos its not evidence, but that there's some mysterious, spiritual evidence.

There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works...

I have no idea what you're on about with the cosmos, I don't think I've even used the word 'cosmos' in this thread. My point is philosophical, not intended to be a "science" argument. People value and evaluate evidence differently. Evidence is what you perceive evidence to be. You may not see evidence while others see it clearly. You may think it's strong evidence, weak evidence, circumstantial evidence, tainted evidence, empirical evidence, irrefutable evidence, unquestionable evidence, or no evidence at all. Depends on your perspective, your judgment, your biases, your objectivity, your preconceptions, etc.

Now, maybe this all ties back in with your conversations on logic and whatnot, but people do value evidence differently, and evidence is subject to individual evaluation as such. That's really been my only argument there, and I don't know what your complaint would be or why you think it's bilge.

The latter is not the evidence; it's the inference based on the evidence. That's why these guys are running circles around you. You're not making any sense, but you're close to the truth. Go back to the imperatives. Stop talking nonsense about evidence. You are clueless as to what evidence and proofs are. You're confusing the difference between direct and inferential evidence, either of which can be subjective or objective. Dude. The atheist has objectively and universally apparent proofs based on inferential evidence that is both rational and empirical in nature: he knows these things. Stop telling him he doesn't. That is false.

DUDE... chill out! Man, dude... like.... totally man... just chill!

I do know what evidence and proof are. I am intellectually informing you about them, in case you had never ventured to explore in more psychological detail. Regardless of what type of evidence, it is only "evidence" to an individual who accepts it as evidence. Proof is when you believe (have faith in) the evidence to support something as truth. This is the only 'imperative' that matters.

When the atheist denies that God exists is he denying the existence of the idea of God? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! He's necessarily acknowledging the existence of the idea of God in his very denial. DUDE!

And what is his understanding of the potentially of God's existence based on? The fact of the PHYSICAL cosmos's existence! DUDE!

You're not building a coherent ground for belief, but destroying it.

DuDE!!1! Really man... like, go toke on the bong again or something dude... you were being brilliant last night with all the logic talk, I enjoyed that stuff... but today you want to hassle me man, and like...DUDE! Fo' real?

I honestly don't know why "the atheist" thinks the way he/she does, I don't lose much sleep over it. I think about half the atheists I meet are just angry at religion for whatever reason. Like I said earlier, it's fascinating how many of my atheist god-bashing facebook friends will jump on to ask everyone to pray for their neighbor's child who is missing, or uncle in the hospital, daughter in a car wreck.... oh, pray for the family... now, it's not all of them, but it happens. It just blows my mind sometimes.

Spiritual nature logically created physical nature and the physical universe, time, space, energy, etc. Why? A logical paradox, a thing cannot create itself if it doesn't exist.

 

[Boss]

Sheesh. It's as though you're being paid by the fundamentalist Christian ministries to press the fundie agenda.

Yeah... I wish one of them fat and happy Jerry Falwell types would hurry up and send me my check! I want to go blow it on whiskey and whores!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:

Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.


A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.

That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"

Actually, it does. A set is not an element of itself. (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!

You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as aspects of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god. Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person. In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.

However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.

Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.

OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.

"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "



They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement. It's not a dilemma for me. It works fine conceptually. The details are beyond us.

You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of the universal principle of identity. Hence, G = {F, S, H simultaneously} is preceded by A: A = A =. Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier simultaneously, wherein each element is a divine person. Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically? Yes. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion. But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity. Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well. But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.

I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory. I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms. If you use "God the Father . . ." on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.

Actually, either way is fine. The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless. Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability. In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically. That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions: the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.

Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom a set is not an element of itself for much the same reason that the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic: to amplify and explore new possibilities.

But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken. But the only real concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory. Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise. I jusnever thought about that wrinkle before. Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.

I basically agree that it is better to be unconditional (since God can neither be proven or disproven given that God represents something infinite eternal behind man's finite and limited scope of perception information and communcation)

So whether or not
A. there IS a central universal Source of all life and laws in existence
B. All things naturally exist and were always in effect as self-existent, or had a start or process that doesn't involve a
singular intelligent force in charge, or have no beginning or no end that we can know for sure without conjecturing
C. there is no such anything of any sort

Our decisions shouldn't depend on ASSUMING one way or the other or REJECTING one way or the other, but should work REGARDLESS which of these ways it is. Especially when dealing with people who live under these different ways, so we can respect each other's boundaries.

We should be able to interact in harmony REGARDLESS of these different ways, so no matter what we do, we still get along, cause no harm, correct errors when made, and help each other make the most of life, relations and knowledge/resources we have available to share.

The point is really do we agree how to act
and work together; what laws or language do we use
to describe the relations we agree to follow between us;
and if we have different or conflicting laws religions beliefs or values,
how do we communicate and manage to reach agreement anyway.

God's existence can be proven and is proven under the conventional standards of justification of organic/classical logic, ultimately premised on the universally self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity as derived from the contemplation of the problems of existence and origin.

What you're saying is false.

God’s existence simply cannot be proven in scientific terms because science if LIMITED to dealing with direct evidence about material things only. It's limitations have no bearing on the rational-empirical, evidentiary proofs for God's existence. What any given person decides to do with these proofs is subjective, but the substance of these proofs is not subjective.

What you're talking about is merely the distinction, in terms of ultimacy, between scientific theory, which is based on inferences derived from direct material evidence, and the logical proofs, which evince the cogency of an immaterial origin based on the same.

Science does not precede or have primacy over the rational and empirical facts of human cognition regarding the universally self-evident imperatives of existence and origin. You do not adequately understand what evidence and proofs are, what the difference is between subjective evidence and objective evidence, and what the difference is between direct evidence and indirect evidence. Also, you do not adequately understand the nature of scientific theories, which are inferred from direct physical evidence, albeit, as premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, which in and of itself is not scientifically falsifiable!

We define, we determine, we infer, we interpret, we decide.

Science doesn't do us; we do science. The limited utility of science doesn't dictate anything to anybody, but the thoughtless, the ignorant or the closed-minded. It is a tool used by us to deal with the material realm of being and nothing else but that. Philosophy deals with the definitions and delineations of metaphysics, and theology, the queen of the sciences, directly deals with the details of ultimate reality, the transcendent realm of being, the ground of all other existents. We need all three, ultimately premised on the affirmations of revealed religion.

 

[BreezeWood]

In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.

against the religious, that's funny, a persecution complex from a spiritualist ... history is no barrier for the innocent whether it speaks for them or not.

.

Female human rights activist killed by ISIS Fox News

Female human rights activist killed by ISIS

BAGHDAD – Militants with the Islamic State group tortured and then publicly killed a human rights lawyer in the Iraqi city of Mosul after their self-proclaimed religious court ruled that she had abandoned Islam, the U.N. mission in Iraq said Thursday.

there's nothing to worry about concerning the biblicists.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works...

Now that I have your attention. . . .

I never said there was anything mysterious about spiritual nature. I never said is doesn't exist. There's plenty of evidence, as you say, that humans are, ultimately and uniquely, spiritual beings.

Recall. I directed your attention to a post in which I named you and pointed out the cogency of your observations in this regard.

But the evidence for this, which you keep pointing at and which I reasonably hold to be objectively admissible, worthy of consideration, is not of a spiritual substance. It's historically and anthropologically empirical!

You are confused, and the atheists on this thread are right when they tell you that you are confused.

I have no idea what you're on about with the cosmos, I don't think I've even used the word 'cosmos' in this thread.

Cosmos = universe.

(1) My point is philosophical, not intended to be a "science" argument. (2) People value and evaluate evidence differently. (3) Evidence is what you perceive evidence to be. (4) You may not see evidence while others see it clearly. You may think it's strong evidence, weak evidence, circumstantial evidence, tainted evidence, empirical evidence, irrefutable evidence, unquestionable evidence, or no evidence at all. Depends on your perspective, your judgment, your biases, your objectivity, your preconceptions, etc.

Statement one is true, but immaterial. Statement two is true. Statement three is false, indeed, the essence of your confusion. Statement four is true and demonstrates why statement three is false.

Your paragraph is about number two and number four; it's not about number three.

Evidence is a visible, apprehensible and presentable sign of something; it’s a substantive indication that provides proof for something. How evidence for something might subjectively be viewed by any given person is not the same thing as what evidence is. As you pointed out in statement number four, any given item(s) of evidence that is a substantive indication providing proof for something exists whether one clearly sees it for what it actually is or not.

Human consciousness does not have primacy over the facts of existence; the facts of existence have primacy over human consciousness. Any given thing is what it is regardless of what we might think it is or is not.

Hence, when you write that "evidence is subject to individual evaluation as such", you write something that is false. Any given thing, including an item/sign of evidence, does not in actuality become something it's not, as if its nature were subject to mere opinion. It's our evaluation of the nature of any given thing that is subject to error or to revision, not the nature of the thing apprehended.

In a court of law, the issue is objective relevancy. The arguments and the artifacts that are allowed by the rulings of the court, constitute items of evidentiary relevance to be weighed. The issue is whether or not they actually prove the actuality or the perceived actuality of their object. The object is known. The goal is objectivity, not subjectivity, however imperfectly that goal may or may not be achieved in any given case.

In any event, the issues before us on this thread go to metaphysical objectivity.

I do know what evidence and proof are. I am intellectually informing you about them, in case you had never ventured to explore in more psychological detail. Regardless of what type of evidence, it is only "evidence" to an individual who accepts it as evidence. Proof is when you believe (have faith in) the evidence to support something as truth. This is the only 'imperative' that matters.

No, you don't, because you’re still confusing what evidence and proofs are with how one might view evidence and proofs. According to you nothing could be held to be objectively true. All is subjective. But all I need to do in order to show why that’s false is to write 2 + 2 = 4. That is a logical-mathematical axiom which is an objective item of evidence providing proof that the comprehensive principle of identity is at the very least a universally hardwired, organic fact of human cognition. 2 + 2 ≠ 7 or 13 or 21 just because some lunatic thinks or says it is.

Finally, you do know what the atheist knows about the idea of God. He knows the same thing about the idea of God that we all know about the idea of God in terms of the problems of existence and origin.

What the atheist knows about the idea of God is no less objectively self-evident than the logical-mathematical axiom of 2 = 2 = 4! I'm not upset with you or going off on you. I don't need to chill out. I'm trying to get your attention. You need to open up your eyes and see what is right in front of you!

Every atheist on this thread has told you what he knows about the idea of God, yet you're still saying you don't know what he knows about the idea of God.

Every friggin' time an atheist opens his mouth to deny their be any actual substance behind the idea of God he is telling what he knows about the idea of God and what it means!

Come on, Boss!

The atheist is telling you that he is aware of the fact that the idea of God is in his head as the ultimate potentially of origin. The atheist knows this about the idea of God!

Why have I put the term atheist in bold? What does the term atheist mean?

Boss!

Everybody knows that one of the potentialities of ultimate origin is God, because everybody knows what the idea of God means, including the atheist.

Whaaaaa? You think the atheist is saying he doesn't believe in something that he doesn't understand or doesn't believe in something that is not in his head as one of the potentialities of ultimate origin?

Boss!

And what is the thing that God is potentially the origin of in the atheist's mind every friggin' time he opens his mouth to deny there be any actual substance behind this conceptual potentiality?

THE UNIVERSE, BOSS! THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S IN IT, INCLUDING THE ATHEIST!

The universe and everything that's in it is the evidence for God's existence; the universe and everything that's in it is the evidentiary substance of the idea of God that's in the atheist's head.

When idiots like Hollie tell you that there is no evidence for the existence of God, as if they didn't know what the idea of God means and what it is based on, which is obviously in their heads because of the evidence of the universe and everything that's in it, they're lying to themselves and to you.

There's your psychology, Boss.

 

[Justin Davis]

There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works...

Boss, how have you managed to get this so backwards? Rawlings and I are not arguing with you over this. But what you're calling the evidence is not the evidence. It's the logical conclusion, the thing being proved. That's the spiritual thing. It's the spiritual being proven or pointed at by the evidence. The evidence for this is physical or empirical.

 

[Justin Davis]

[
"or prove it to be true by saying its not true"

The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.

So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself. At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot. You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think. The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that? You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious. I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.

 

[Boss]

Guys, I don't know why your minds can imagine all sorts of complexity in concepts like logic, but you aren't following what I am saying. To put it simply, evidence is only evidence when someone acknowledges it is evidence. Let's say I live in a hut in Africa, I've never heard of science, don't comprehend the concept at all... I believe the rains are controlled by the great sky spirit. You come along and show me what you consider to be the physical evidence of how rain happens. You understand it as evidence, to you it is valid, legitimate evidence. To me it means absolutely nothing because I don't believe in science. What you are presenting is not evidence to me, I don't believe in the concept the evidence is for, therefore it isn't evidence from my perspective. I am not saying the evidence is not evidence or isn't valid or true. Evidence can only be evidence when someone accepts it is evidence. Evidence is subjective and what constitutes evidence is also subjective.

What you guys are arguing is, once someone determines something is evidence, it can't ever be questioned as evidence, for it has been proclaimed evidence. I know people who think they have evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sure their evidence is valid and legitimate to them, from their perspective. To me, their evidence is NOT evidence. It is circumstantial coincidence. But my mind is biased to the fact that I don't believe the premise the evidence is for, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. So what is evidence? Is is what someone proclaims is evidence or what someone accepts as evidence?

I understand the universe is evidence of God. I go that even further, time itself is evidence for God. However, those of us who believe this as evidence also believe in God. So now we have what is called confirmation bias. Atheists reject God, they don't believe God exists, they don't believe in the spiritual, so they do not consider the universe or time as evidence for God. So is the evidence what someone claims it is, or what someone accepts it is?

It's important to remember, whenever a human being comprehends something as a truth, something that is proven to them, they literally always have "evidence" to support their belief. So whenever we hear people argue something is true and here is the evidence... this is normal. It is the default human position to have evidence to support your beliefs. This does not make your evidence empirical or validate your beliefs in any way, other than to yourself.

 

[Boss]

There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works...

Boss, how have you managed to get this so backwards? Rawlings and I are not arguing with you over this. But what you're calling the evidence is not the evidence. It's the logical conclusion, the thing being proved. That's the spiritual thing. It's the spiritual being proven or pointed at by the evidence. The evidence for this is physical or empirical.

I don't think I have gotten anything backwards. I'm a bit puzzled as to why it seems we are on the same side, yet you are disagreeing with me. The things I've said are not contradictory to things you've said, just a different perspective. I am approaching this from a psychological and semantics direction because that's what I am most familiar with. We have words, we've applied definition to those words. It's very important to note that Atheists and Theists have differing understandings when it comes to those word definitions. When it is asked, "Does God Exist?" you have to evaluate what does "exist" mean? To an Atheist, it can only mean one thing, to physically exist. Then you have to define "God" and what is meant there.

Atheists are unable to comprehend a spiritual existence. This is why they make these threads and seem so frustrated that no one can ever show them "proof of God" here. Since God is not a physical entity, God simply can't be proven to be a physical entity. Even to someone who is willing to accept that God could be a physical entity. By definition, God has to be spiritual, which is not physical. So we can say we have to prove spiritual nature exists, but then, what does "exist" mean to an Atheist?

 

[Hollie]

There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works...

Now that I have your attention. . . .

I never said there was anything mysterious about spiritual nature. I never said is doesn't exist. There's plenty of evidence, as you say, that humans are, ultimately and uniquely, spiritual beings.

Recall. I directed your attention to a post in which I named you and pointed out the cogency of your observations in this regard.

But the evidence for this, which you keep pointing at and which I reasonably hold to be objectively admissible, worthy of consideration, is not of a spiritual substance. It's historically and anthropologically empirical!

You are confused, and the atheists on this thread are right when they tell you that you are confused.

I have no idea what you're on about with the cosmos, I don't think I've even used the word 'cosmos' in this thread.

Cosmos = universe.

(1) My point is philosophical, not intended to be a "science" argument. (2) People value and evaluate evidence differently. (3) Evidence is what you perceive evidence to be. (4) You may not see evidence while others see it clearly. You may think it's strong evidence, weak evidence, circumstantial evidence, tainted evidence, empirical evidence, irrefutable evidence, unquestionable evidence, or no evidence at all. Depends on your perspective, your judgment, your biases, your objectivity, your preconceptions, etc.

Statement one is true, but immaterial. Statement two is true. Statement three is false, indeed, the essence of your confusion. Statement four is true and demonstrates why statement three is false.

Your paragraph is about number two and number four; it's not about number three.

Evidence is a visible, apprehensible and presentable sign of something; it’s a substantive indication that provides proof for something. How evidence for something might subjectively be viewed by any given person is not the same thing as what evidence is. As you pointed out in statement number four, any given item(s) of evidence that is a substantive indication providing proof for something exists whether one clearly sees it for what it actually is or not.

Human consciousness does not have primacy over the facts of existence; the facts of existence have primacy over human consciousness. Any given thing is what it is regardless of what we might think it is or is not.

Hence, when you write that "evidence is subject to individual evaluation as such", you write something that is false. Any given thing, including an item/sign of evidence, does not in actuality become something it's not, as if its nature were subject to mere opinion. It's our evaluation of the nature of any given thing that is subject to error or to revision, not the nature of the thing apprehended.

In a court of law, the issue is objective relevancy. The arguments and the artifacts that are allowed by the rulings of the court, constitute items of evidentiary relevance to be weighed. The issue is whether or not they actually prove the actuality or the perceived actuality of their object. The object is known. The goal is objectivity, not subjectivity, however imperfectly that goal may or may not be achieved in any given case.

In any event, the issues before us on this thread go to metaphysical objectivity.

I do know what evidence and proof are. I am intellectually informing you about them, in case you had never ventured to explore in more psychological detail. Regardless of what type of evidence, it is only "evidence" to an individual who accepts it as evidence. Proof is when you believe (have faith in) the evidence to support something as truth. This is the only 'imperative' that matters.

No, you don't, because you’re still confusing what evidence and proofs are with how one might view evidence and proofs. According to you nothing could be held to be objectively true. All is subjective. But all I need to do in order to show why that’s false is to write 2 + 2 = 4. That is a logical-mathematical axiom which is an objective item of evidence providing proof that the comprehensive principle of identity is at the very least a universally hardwired, organic fact of human cognition. 2 + 2 ≠ 7 or 13 or 21 just because some lunatic thinks or says it is.

Finally, you do know what the atheist knows about the idea of God. He knows the same thing about the idea of God that we all know about the idea of God in terms of the problems of existence and origin.

What the atheist knows about the idea of God is no less objectively self-evident than the logical-mathematical axiom of 2 = 2 = 4! I'm not upset with you or going off on you. I don't need to chill out. I'm trying to get your attention. You need to open up your eyes and see what is right in front of you!

Every atheist on this thread has told you what he knows about the idea of God, yet you're still saying you don't know what he knows about the idea of God.

Every friggin' time an atheist opens his mouth to deny their be any actual substance behind the idea of God he is telling what he knows about the idea of God and what it means!

Come on, Boss!

The atheist is telling you that he is aware of the fact that the idea of God is in his head as the ultimate potentially of origin. The atheist knows this about the idea of God!

Why have I put the term atheist in bold? What does the term atheist mean?

Boss!

Everybody knows that one of the potentialities of ultimate origin is God, because everybody knows what the idea of God means, including the atheist.

Whaaaaa? You think the atheist is saying he doesn't believe in something that he doesn't understand or doesn't believe in something that is not in his head as one of the potentialities of ultimate origin?

Boss!

And what is the thing that God is potentially the origin of in the atheist's mind every friggin' time he opens his mouth to deny there be any actual substance behind this conceptual potentiality?

THE UNIVERSE, BOSS! THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S IN IT, INCLUDING THE ATHEIST!

The universe and everything that's in it is the evidence for God's existence; the universe and everything that's in it is the evidentiary substance of the idea of God that's in the atheist's head.

When idiots like Hollie tell you that there is no evidence for the existence of God, as if they didn't know what the idea of God means and what it is based on, which is obviously in their heads because of the evidence of the universe and everything that's in it, they're lying to themselves and to you.

There's your psychology, Boss.

I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.

 

[Boss]

And for the record here... I am not on this to convert or attack Atheists. My dog isn't in that hunt, I don't get reward bonuses for souls anymore from PTL or discounts on my NRA membership. I don't care what Atheists want to believe. My own flesh and blood sister, calls ME an Atheist! She is a Christian. Her argument is, I am an atheist because I am a-theistic. I do not belong to or follow organized religions. At first she just said I had a lot in common with "those atheists you argue with online." It has evolved into her just calling me her Atheist Brother.

So I guess I am an Atheist who believes in a Spiritual God.